Agree with Alex. Vova, please go on with issues taking Alex's comments into consideration.
Thanks! --Yakov 2016-07-21 10:43 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>: > Big +1 on this in general. > > I would also relax our guarantees on operations submitted from the same > thread. Currently we guarantee that sequential invocations of async > operations happen in the same order. I think that if a user wants such > guarantees, he must define these dependencies explicitly by calling chain() > on returning futures. > > This change will significantly improve cache operations performance in > async mode. > > 3) Sync operations normally* should not* be implemented through async. This > > is a long story - if we delegate to async, then we have to bother with > > additional threads, associated back-pressure control and all that crap. > > Sync call must be sync unless there is a very strong reason to go through > > async path. > > > Not sure about this, though. In most cases a cache operation implies > request/response over the network, so I think we should have explicit > synchronous counterparts only for methods that are guaranteed to be local. >
