Sounds good. Thanks for the feedback. Do you have any suggestions for the name? Currently the class name is called AsyncWrapper and the file name is named async_dofn.py. Would async_wrapper_dofn be better?
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 9:57 AM Reuven Lax <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm pretty sure the Scio s implementation is working different. Hence the > reason why I suggest we call this something other than AsuncDoFn. > > On Tue, May 19, 2026, 4:09 AM Kellen Dye <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There is an implementation of this already in scio that could be >> donated/modified/etc. cc @Claire McGinty <[email protected]> >> >> Cheers, >> Kellen >> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 11:12 PM Reuven Lax via dev <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Can we name it something else? This doesn't seem like AsyncDoFn to me, >>> and we should probably have named the Python version something else >>> initially. >>> >>> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 1:59 PM Tejas Iyer via dev <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I'm Tejas, and I am planning to implement an asynchronous DoFn wrapper >>>> for the Apache Beam Java SDK. Currently, this capability exists in the >>>> Python SDK, and I would like to mirror this functionality in Java to allow >>>> developers write and manage asynchronous DoFns in their pipelines. >>>> >>>> I have created a feature request to track this work here: >>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/38529 >>>> >>>> Because this is a straightforward implementation based on the existing >>>> Python SDK, it shouldn't warrant a full design doc, but I wanted to give >>>> the community a heads-up. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you have any early feedback, concerns, or if >>>> anyone would be interested in reviewing the code once the PR is ready. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Tejas >>>> >>>
