Clarify scheduled asynchonous methods with return type of void #444
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
KyleAure
force-pushed
the
439-scheduled-async-clarification
branch
from
b8458d8 to
8ff70a4
Compare
KyleAure
force-pushed
the
439-scheduled-async-clarification
branch
from
8ff70a4 to
e8d2ddb
Compare
njr-11
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will need a minor typo fixed and could use some formatting, but this looks good. What you added is consistent with the prior statement and removes all uncertainty for anyone who might wrongly assume that a method returning void isn't still associated with a CompletableFuture that represents the completion of all executions.
api/src/main/java/jakarta/enterprise/concurrent/Asynchronous.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@us.ibm.com>
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Clarification for #439