Re: java.util.concurrent.Flow with opposite direction of item flow

Yes, I said symmetry, because that's what I can think of when justifying
why producer "must" be able to "call request" "at their own discretion". In
other words, if you object to symmetry, you need to find a justification
for the claim that the Producer "must" be able to "call request".

Alex

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, 07:17 Alexei Kaigorodov via Concurrency-interest, <
[email protected]> wrote:

> /This symmetry is superficial./
> Yes it is.
> Note you were the first who used the word symmetry. I did not claim there
> must be symmetry, I only said:
> /Producers must play active role and so be like Subscribers, able to call
> Subscription#request() at their own discretion/
> So Producers must be able to call Subscription#request(), that's it. The
> data transfer is made differently compared to communication between
> Flow.Publishers and Flow.Subscribers.
> / the return value of the put()/
> BlockingQueue#put() has no return value. Maybe you meant take()? Anyway, I
> am sure we can stay in the bounds of BlockingQueue and introducing any
> other
> blocking methods only makes life harder.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://jsr166-concurrency.10961.n7.nabble.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>

_______________________________________________
Concurrency-interest mailing list
[email protected]
http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest