Provide Synchronous Execute()

[fsprojects]

Provide Synchronous Execute()

[ovatsus]

Actually XxxAsync usually means that a Task is returned, the convention for F# async is AsyncXxx

[dmitry-a-morozov]

Robert,
I followed same guidelines as (slides # 15-16)
http://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3a%2f%2fvideo.ch9.ms%2fsessions%2fbuild%2f2013%2f3-301.pptx
Video
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2013/3-301#time=55m40s
Async prefix/post-fix is legacy from old days where there were 2 versions of method. Type system is expressive enough for user to figure out that return type is async computation.

[rojepp]

@ovatsus Completely correct, sorry.
@dmitry-a-morozov I've had that same notion, thinking always provide async only. Now, being exposed to it, it is pretty annoying, and I quickly changed my opinion. :)
Often you don't care about async. In the app I tried this TP on, I'm processing up to 95.000 mappings from street address to lat/lon coordinates every day. This is a simple console app, and Async is completely irrelevant here. Getting back an async in this case just distracts; 'now what do I do with this?'

[dmitry-a-morozov]

Robert,
Are you on F# 3.1?

[rojepp]

No, still 3.0. Why?

[dmitry-a-morozov]

You can write generic extension method that does sync execution.
But you need 3.1 for it to make sense otherwise it won't look anyhow better than Async.RunSynchronously
Follow me?

[rojepp]

You mean because type annotations are no longer necessary for extension methods? Pretty obscure to me, will not make anything look better. But I feel the resistance. I'm fine with closing the issue.

[dmitry-a-morozov]

Because you can combine extension method and inline constrains.
I'll send you example later (once I'll install VS 2013)
Don't close it yet. I want think about it.

[dmitry-a-morozov]

@ovatsus What's you take on this async/sync issue?

1. Keep only one async Execute
2. Have 2 methods AsyncExecute & Execute
3. Add helper module method: let inline SqlCommand.execute = cmd.Execute() |> Async.RunSynchronously

[ovatsus]

I'd say 2)

---

From: Dmitry
Sent: 18/10/2013 19:12
To: dmitry-a-morozov/FSharp.Data.SqlCommandTypeProvider
Cc: Gustavo Guerra
Subject: Re: [FSharp.Data.SqlCommandTypeProvider] Provide Synchronous Execute() (#5)

@ovatsus What's you take on this async/sync issue?

1. Keep only one async Execute
2. Have 2 methods AsyncExecute & Execute
3. Add helper module method: let inline SqlCommand.execute = cmd.Execute() |> Async.RunSynchronously

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#5 (comment)