Skip to content
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

Introduce Async/Task-based calls for the Operations #21

Closed
baronfel opened this issue Apr 6, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

Introduce Async/Task-based calls for the Operations #21

baronfel opened this issue Apr 6, 2016 · 2 comments
Milestone

Comments

@baronfel
Copy link
Contributor

baronfel commented Apr 6, 2016

Description

The current version of the SwaggerProvider only exposes synchronous network calls. It would be excellent if we had Async or Task-based versions as well, for throughput reasons.
I don't know which representation (Async or Task) would be best, especially because the operations from this library are often consumed by C# code.

Repro steps

Expected behavior

Asyncronous versions of the operations would be made available.

Actual behavior

Only synchronous versions of operations are present.

Known workarounds

You can manually manage Tasks/Asyncs of synchronous operations via the old-style BackgroundWorker/IAsyncResult mechanisms if you so wish.

Related information

@7sharp9
Copy link
Member

7sharp9 commented Aug 26, 2017

I would say asynchronous calls is a must, I would not expect any calls to be synchronous. In terms of Task/Async I would say support both, use a param on the TP to generate the non default one.

@sergey-tihon sergey-tihon added this to the v1.0 milestone Nov 18, 2017
@sergey-tihon sergey-tihon removed this from the v1.0 milestone Dec 2, 2017
@baronfel baronfel mentioned this issue Jan 29, 2018
2 tasks
@sergey-tihon
Copy link
Member

Released in v0.10.0-alpha9 thanks to @baronfel !

@sergey-tihon sergey-tihon added this to the v1.0 milestone Mar 2, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants