Sounds good. I've added this to the 3.0 roadmap: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+3.0
Unless there are any objections from others, let's stick with the CompletableFuture for any future development, including the thin client. -Val On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 9:30 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> wrote: > Val, no objections from my side. > As noted above, the only benefit of IgniteFuture is consistency across > thin/thick APIs, > which is probably not so important. > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:28 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Pavel, > > > > Are there any benefits of IgniteFuture over CompletableFuture? > > > > IgniteFuture was created long ago, during the time when CompletableFuture > > did not exist. There is a big chance that IgniteFuture actually became > > redundant at the moment we transitioned to Java8. If that's the case, I > > would prefer using CompletableFuture in the thin client and getting rid > of > > IgniteFuture altogether in 3.0. > > > > What do you think? > > > > -Val > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 7:19 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > I've prepared an IEP [1], please review and let me know what you think. > > > > > > In particular, I'd like to discuss the Future interface to be used: > > > * IgniteFuture is the first candidate - Thin APIs will be consistent > with > > > Thick APIs, probably better for existing Ignite users. > > > * CompletableFuture is the standard for async Java APIs. Many users may > > > prefer that instead of a custom IgniteFuture. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-51%3A+Java+Thin+Client+Async+API > > > > > >
