Skip to content

Better waitAll on scheduler #4486

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
dubzzz opened this issue Nov 27, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Better waitAll on scheduler #4486

dubzzz opened this issue Nov 27, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
💡 Idea to investigate Non straightforward features that seems great but need to be assessed and designed carefully.

Comments

@dubzzz
Copy link
Owner

dubzzz commented Nov 27, 2023

💡 Idea

While waitAll is not the best option as it tend not to be explicit on what the user want (mostly regarding the speed of scheduling), it's still the simplest option in many case.

We should make it able to wait less strictly. While playing around with it, it appears that the simplest option is probably to wrap calls with custom acts either

  • not doing anything,
  • doing an extra await,
  • doing a sleep 0...

Well, these options might be directly offered on the scheduler at creation time.

@dubzzz dubzzz added 💡 Idea 💡 Idea to investigate Non straightforward features that seems great but need to be assessed and designed carefully. labels Nov 27, 2023
@dubzzz
Copy link
Owner Author

dubzzz commented Nov 27, 2023

Might be cool to have it before the next major, see #3891

@dubzzz
Copy link
Owner Author

dubzzz commented Feb 20, 2024

Wait might not be the best name actually. Maybe we should have called it something like: run, release, unlock...

@dubzzz dubzzz removed the 💡 Idea label Mar 1, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
💡 Idea to investigate Non straightforward features that seems great but need to be assessed and designed carefully.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant