CompletableFuture

[Sam Pullara]

Nah, you just join futures.

future1.join(future2).then(e -> foo(e));

Sam

On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Sam Pullara <spullara at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nah, you just join futures.
> 
> future1.join(future2).then(e -> foo(e));
> 
> Sam
> 
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:55 AM, "David M. Lloyd" <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, but it only allows for one dependency per task.  It makes more sense to turn it around and thus be able to do:
>> 
>> WhateverFuture<T> x = Task.of(e -> foo(e)).dependsOn(future1).dependsOn(future2).release();
>> 
>> or something.
>> 
>> On 11/28/2012 12:47 PM, Sam Pullara wrote:
>>> I'm confused. The intent is that .then() is just a dependency and the blocks will be executed as soon as it is satisfied. Am I misunderstanding your concern?
>>> 
>>> Sam
>>> 
>>> On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:11 AM, "David M. Lloyd" <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Maybe this is getting a bit to abstract, but anecdotally speaking we have found that "do A then B" is "less good" than "do B when A is done", i.e. model the problem in terms of tasks and their dependencies rather than as a sequential chain of tasks to run in order.  It's just inherently cleaner and potentially more performant (any given task can execute as soon as its dependencies are satisfied; there are no artificial sequences imposed on tasks).  But, at the same time, that mode of thinking seems to be fairly incompatible with Future.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> - DML
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> - DML
>