#pragma once
-#include "detail.h"
-#include <folly/LifoSem.h>
+#include <chrono>
+#include <thread>
+
+#include <folly/wangle/detail/Core.h>
+#include <folly/Baton.h>
namespace folly { namespace wangle {
};
template <class T>
-Future<T>::Future(Future<T>&& other) : obj_(other.obj_) {
- other.obj_ = nullptr;
+Future<T>::Future(Future<T>&& other) noexcept : core_(nullptr) {
+ *this = std::move(other);
}
template <class T>
Future<T>& Future<T>::operator=(Future<T>&& other) {
- std::swap(obj_, other.obj_);
+ std::swap(core_, other.core_);
return *this;
}
template <class T>
Future<T>::~Future() {
- if (obj_) {
- setContinuation([](Try<T>&&) {}); // detach
+ detach();
+}
+
+template <class T>
+void Future<T>::detach() {
+ if (core_) {
+ core_->detachFuture();
+ core_ = nullptr;
}
}
template <class T>
void Future<T>::throwIfInvalid() const {
- if (!obj_)
+ if (!core_)
throw NoState();
}
template <class T>
template <class F>
-void Future<T>::setContinuation(F&& func) {
+void Future<T>::setCallback_(F&& func) {
throwIfInvalid();
- obj_->setContinuation(std::move(func));
- obj_ = nullptr;
+ core_->setCallback(std::move(func));
}
template <class T>
sophisticated that avoids making a new Future object when it can, as an
optimization. But this is correct.
- obj_ can't be moved, it is explicitly disallowed (as is copying). But
+ core_ can't be moved, it is explicitly disallowed (as is copying). But
if there's ever a reason to allow it, this is one place that makes that
assumption and would need to be fixed. We use a standard shared pointer
- for obj_ (by copying it in), which means in essence obj holds a shared
+ for core_ (by copying it in), which means in essence obj holds a shared
pointer to itself. But this shouldn't leak because Promise will not
outlive the continuation, because Promise will setException() with a
broken Promise if it is destructed before completed. We could use a
We have to move in the Promise and func using the MoveWrapper
hack. (func could be copied but it's a big drag on perf).
- Two subtle but important points about this design. FutureObject has no
+ Two subtle but important points about this design. detail::Core has no
back pointers to Future or Promise, so if Future or Promise get moved
(and they will be moved in performant code) we don't have to do
anything fancy. And because we store the continuation in the
- FutureObject, not in the Future, we can execute the continuation even
+ detail::Core, not in the Future, we can execute the continuation even
after the Future has gone out of scope. This is an intentional design
decision. It is likely we will want to be able to cancel a continuation
in some circumstances, but I think it should be explicit not implicit
in the destruction of the Future used to create it.
*/
- setContinuation(
+ setCallback_(
[p, funcm](Try<T>&& t) mutable {
p->fulfil([&]() {
return (*funcm)(std::move(t));
// grab the Future now before we lose our handle on the Promise
auto f = p->getFuture();
- setContinuation(
+ setCallback_(
[p, funcm](Try<T>&& t) mutable {
try {
auto f2 = (*funcm)(std::move(t));
// that didn't throw, now we can steal p
- f2.setContinuation([p](Try<B>&& b) mutable {
+ f2.setCallback_([p](Try<B>&& b) mutable {
p->fulfilTry(std::move(b));
});
} catch (...) {
typename std::add_lvalue_reference<T>::type Future<T>::value() {
throwIfInvalid();
- return obj_->value();
+ return core_->value();
}
template <class T>
typename std::add_lvalue_reference<const T>::type Future<T>::value() const {
throwIfInvalid();
- return obj_->value();
+ return core_->value();
}
template <class T>
Try<T>& Future<T>::getTry() {
throwIfInvalid();
- return obj_->getTry();
+ return core_->getTry();
}
template <class T>
inline Future<T> Future<T>::via(Executor* executor) {
throwIfInvalid();
- folly::MoveWrapper<Promise<T>> p;
- auto f = p->getFuture();
-
- setContinuation([executor, p](Try<T>&& t) mutable {
- folly::MoveWrapper<Try<T>> tt(std::move(t));
- executor->add([p, tt]() mutable {
- p->fulfilTry(std::move(*tt));
- });
- });
+ this->deactivate();
+ core_->setExecutor(executor);
- return f;
-}
-
-template <class T>
-template <typename Executor>
-inline void Future<T>::executeWith(
- Executor* executor, Promise<T>&& cont_promise) {
- throwIfInvalid();
-
- folly::MoveWrapper<Promise<T>> p(std::move(cont_promise));
-
- setContinuation([executor, p](Try<T>&& t) mutable {
- folly::MoveWrapper<Try<T>> tt(std::move(t));
- executor->add([p, tt]() mutable {
- p->fulfilTry(std::move(*tt));
- });
- });
+ return std::move(*this);
}
template <class T>
bool Future<T>::isReady() const {
throwIfInvalid();
- return obj_->ready();
+ return core_->ready();
}
// makeFuture
}
template <class T, class E>
-typename std::enable_if<std::is_base_of<std::exception, E>::value, Future<T>>::type
+typename std::enable_if<std::is_base_of<std::exception, E>::value,
+ Future<T>>::type
makeFuture(E const& e) {
Promise<T> p;
auto f = p.getFuture();
for (size_t i = 0; first != last; ++first, ++i) {
auto& f = *first;
- f.setContinuation([ctx, i](Try<T>&& t) {
+ f.setCallback_([ctx, i](Try<T>&& t) {
ctx->results[i] = std::move(t);
if (++ctx->count == ctx->total) {
ctx->p.setValue(std::move(ctx->results));
for (size_t i = 0; first != last; first++, i++) {
auto& f = *first;
- f.setContinuation([i, ctx](Try<T>&& t) {
+ f.setCallback_([i, ctx](Try<T>&& t) {
if (!ctx->done.exchange(true)) {
ctx->p.setValue(std::make_pair(i, std::move(t)));
}
return ctx->p.getFuture();
}
-template <typename F>
-typename F::value_type
-waitWithSemaphore(F&& f) {
- LifoSem sem;
- Try<typename F::value_type> done;
- f.then([&](Try<typename F::value_type> &&t) {
- done = std::move(t);
- sem.post();
+template <typename T>
+Future<T>
+waitWithSemaphore(Future<T>&& f) {
+ Baton<> baton;
+ auto done = f.then([&](Try<T> &&t) {
+ baton.post();
+ return std::move(t.value());
});
- sem.wait();
- return std::move(done.value());
+ baton.wait();
+ while (!done.isReady()) {
+ // There's a race here between the return here and the actual finishing of
+ // the future. f is completed, but the setup may not have finished on done
+ // after the baton has posted.
+ std::this_thread::yield();
+ }
+ return done;
}
-inline void waitWithSemaphore(Future<void>&& f) {
- LifoSem sem;
- Try<void> done;
- f.then([&](Try<void> &&t) {
- done = std::move(t);
- sem.post();
+template<>
+inline Future<void> waitWithSemaphore<void>(Future<void>&& f) {
+ Baton<> baton;
+ auto done = f.then([&](Try<void> &&t) {
+ baton.post();
+ t.value();
});
- sem.wait();
- return done.value();
+ baton.wait();
+ while (!done.isReady()) {
+ // There's a race here between the return here and the actual finishing of
+ // the future. f is completed, but the setup may not have finished on done
+ // after the baton has posted.
+ std::this_thread::yield();
+ }
+ return done;
}
+
+template <typename T, class Duration>
+Future<T>
+waitWithSemaphore(Future<T>&& f, Duration timeout) {
+ auto baton = std::make_shared<Baton<>>();
+ auto done = f.then([baton](Try<T> &&t) {
+ baton->post();
+ return std::move(t.value());
+ });
+ baton->timed_wait(std::chrono::system_clock::now() + timeout);
+ return done;
+}
+
+template <class Duration>
+Future<void>
+waitWithSemaphore(Future<void>&& f, Duration timeout) {
+ auto baton = std::make_shared<Baton<>>();
+ auto done = f.then([baton](Try<void> &&t) {
+ baton->post();
+ t.value();
+ });
+ baton->timed_wait(std::chrono::system_clock::now() + timeout);
+ return done;
+}
+
}}
// I haven't included a Future<T&> specialization because I don't forsee us