[concurrency-interest] No *Task counterpart of CompletableFuture?

√iktor Ҡlang viktor.klang at gmail.com
Tue Feb 11 17:22:44 EST 2014


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mikula at gmail.com>wrote:

> That's a good question and, as a matter of fact, I'm not even calling
> any Future methods on the result. I think it's just because of my
> current setting where I have other means of synchronization than
> Future.get(), namely I'm using Platform.runLater() from JavaFX, like
> this:
>
> res.thenAccept(r -> {
>     Platform.runLater(() -> handle(r));
> });
>
> I thought in other settings you would need to eventually call
> Future.get() to synchronize with the main thread of computation.
>

If you need to "synchronize with main thread" then you can always attach a
CountDownLatch(1) as an on-complete callback and do countDown() there, and
then do a timed wait on the CTD on the main thread.

No need for Future.


>
> Are you suggesting that
> a) I should probably never need to call Future.get(); or
> b) there's always CompletionStage.toCompletableFuture() (which I only
> discovered now, so yes, I probably don't need Future)?
>
> Regards,
> Tomas
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, √iktor Ҡlang <viktor.klang at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mikula at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
> >> > On 02/10/2014 07:24 PM, Tomas Mikula wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I really like the addition of the CompletionStage interface in 1.8.
> >> >> However, there is just one implementation of it and that is
> >> >> CompletableFuture. I am missing a task counterpart of it, i.e.
> >> >> something that is both a Future and a CompletionStage, but is
> >> >> completed by a computation (i.e. takes a Callable constructor
> argument
> >> >> or has a protected abstract compute() method).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > There are instead (four) static methods that accept functions and
> return
> >> > a CompletableFuture that is complete after they run. For example
> >> > supplyAsync is pasted below. Do you have usages in mind where
> >> > you'd need something different?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     /**
> >> >      * Returns a new CompletableFuture that is asynchronously
> completed
> >> >      * by a task running in the given executor with the value obtained
> >> >      * by calling the given Supplier.
> >> >      *
> >> >      * @param supplier a function returning the value to be used
> >> >      * to complete the returned CompletableFuture
> >> >      * @param executor the executor to use for asynchronous execution
> >> >      * @param <U> the function's return type
> >> >      * @return the new CompletableFuture
> >> >      */
> >> >     public static <U> CompletableFuture<U> supplyAsync(Supplier<U>
> >> > supplier,
> >> >                                                        Executor
> >> > executor)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks, Doug,
> >>
> >> turns out my research was too shallow. This is all I need to get the job
> >> done.
> >>
> >> There's just one minor wrinkle that I can live with. I am designing an
> >> asynchronous interface whose method should return something that is
> >> both a Future and a CompletionStage, but not necessarily a
> >> CompletableFuture, i.e. without the complete* methods. In other words,
> >> the interface should return something that completes on its own and
> >> thus doesn't need the complete* methods. I don't want the client of
> >> the interface to be able to call the complete* methods.
> >>
> >> I can accomplish this with
> >>
> >> interface Foo<T> {
> >>     <U, F extends CompletionStage<U> & Future<U>> F foo(Function<T, U>
> f);
> >> }
> >>
> >> which is slightly more verbose than (imaginary)
> >>
> >> interface Foo<T> {
> >>     <U> CompletionFuture<U> foo(Function<T, U> f);
> >> }
> >>
> >> where CompletionFuture is defined as suggested before:
> >>
> >> interface CompletionFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T> {}
> >
> >
> > May I ask why it needs to implement Future?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Tomas
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I imagine a hierarchy like this:
> >> >>
> >> >> interface CompletionFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T>
> {}
> >> >>
> >> >> class CompletableFuture<T> implements CompletionFuture<T> {...}
> >> >>
> >> >> class CompletionFutureTask<T> implements CompletionFuture<T> {
> >> >>      public CompletionFutureTask(Callable<T> callable) {...}
> >> >>      // or
> >> >>      protected abstract T compute();
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Is there a reason why this is missing? Is there a plan to add this?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Tomas
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> >> >> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> >> >> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Concurrency-interest mailing list
> >> > Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> >> > http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> >> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> >> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > √
> >
> > ———————
> > Viktor Klang
> > Chief Architect - Typesafe
> >
> > Twitter: @viktorklang
>



-- 
Cheers,
√

*———————**Viktor Klang*
*Chief Architect - **Typesafe <http://www.typesafe.com/>*

Twitter: @viktorklang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20140211/e877c616/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list