[SERVER-50102] Rename Future to InlineFuture Created: 04/Aug/20 Updated: 19/May/22 Resolved: 19/May/22 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Spencer Brody (Inactive) | Assignee: | Matt Diener (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | neweng | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Sprint: | Service Arch 2022-05-30 |
| Participants: |
| Description |
|
So the behavior is more clear and it's obvious that the Future class isn't the "default' or "best" of the Future types (as opposed to SemiFuture or ExecutorFuture). |
| Comments |
| Comment by Matt Diener (Inactive) [ 19/May/22 ] |
|
I think there is a time and place to use Future over Semi/ExecutorFuture. It's definitely safe to use Future. Closing as Won't Fix. Adding the Inline prefix is not the way to improve people's understanding in my opinion. It's a question of better documentation and examples. |
| Comment by Lauren Lewis (Inactive) [ 21/Dec/21 ] |
|
We haven’t heard back from you in at least 1 year, so I'm going to close this ticket. If this is still an issue for you, please provide additional information and we will reopen the ticket. |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 27/Aug/20 ] |
|
Or maybe even UnsafeInlineFuture to make it even less appealing to use? |