[concurrency-interest] CompletableFuture in Java 8

√iktor Ҡlang viktor.klang at gmail.com
Thu Dec 4 13:13:55 EST 2014


On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Josh Humphries <jh at squareup.com> wrote:

>
>> And I think Josh's point that blocking (invoking get()) is *orthogonal* to
>>> the ability for a reader/consumer to *write* the value of a computation,
>>>
>>
>> Now that I think we can all agree on. But that was not how he phrased it
>> AFAICT.
>>
>
> Admittedly, I didn't use exactly that phrase. But that is precisely what I
> meant when I wrote this:
>
> "So to me, splitting imperative completion and task-based implicit
> completion into different interfaces is a different concern than splitting
> blocking and non-blocking forms of consumption."
>

Thanks for clarifying. What I commented on was that mixing concerns seemed
appropriate in one case, and discouraged in the other, without any
rationale as to why that was OK for one thing but not the other. (I'm still
very much interested in this)




-- 
Cheers,
√
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20141204/f1819aba/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list