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

Question: Where to start future implementation for Redis? #151

Open
rstub opened this Issue Jun 12, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@rstub
Copy link

rstub commented Jun 12, 2017

In doFuture's vignette it says:

There is currently no known future implementation and therefore no known [doFuture] alternative to the [doRedis] packages.

I think a future implementation based on Redis would be very interesting. Could you give me a hint where to start such an implementation?

@HenrikBengtsson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

HenrikBengtsson commented Jan 5, 2018

Hi, this one slipped for many reasons - one being I'm not a regular/savvy user of Redis. One solution would be to implement a future backend on top of the rrqueue package, which builds upon Redis.

The very rough outline would be to create a RrqueueFuture class that extends the Future class (or possibly the MultiprocessFuture class) and implements a run() that launch/spawn to rrqueue, a resolved() that checks with rrqueue whether the task is done, and a value() that collects the value from rrqueue. It looks like rrqueue already has functions for those mechanisms, so it could be that a first prototype would only require a very shallow set of wrappers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment