+1 to Yakov. Closure execution also creates a task and I don't see any
reason for hiding it. And actually we don't hide it - we fire task/job
events, apply the same failover mechanisms, etc.
What probably is confusing here is the name of the class. ComputeTaskFuture
indeed looks like applied only to execution of a ComputeTask. How about
renaming it to IgniteComputeFuture (or just ComputeFuture) then?
-Val
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote:
> Vladimir,
>
> I disagree. I understand this is minor issue, but still.
>
> Here are the points:
>
> 1. TaskSession is supported for all compute methods. Please see -
> ComputeFailoverExample. Every compute method starts a task.
> 2. You still return task future, but method return type is a
> super-interface.
> 3. User cannot identify the spawned broadcast - returned future does not
> provide any ID.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2017-05-30 11:28 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Valya,
> >
> > This future contains task session. We intentionally changed return type
> to
> > plain IgniteFuture for closure methods, as there is no notion of
> "session"
> > and "task" for them. ComputeTaskFuture now returned only from
> task-related
> > methods ("execute"). Unless I am missing something, this approach looks
> > correct.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I noticed that the new async API for IgniteCompute returns
> IgniteFuture,
> > > while previously we used to have its extension - ComputeTaskFuture,
> which
> > > contains useful information about the executed task session.
> > >
> > > Should this be fixed?
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> >
>
