Skip to content

Should we expose task::AtomicWaker? #354

@yoshuawuyts

Description

@yoshuawuyts
Contributor

As per async-rs/futures-timer#39 it seems there are some scenarios where having an AtomicWaker type available would be useful.

It's somewhat niche, but I was wondering if it would perhaps make sense to expose it? Thoughts?

If we do we should probably create a separate crate so we can share the impl with futures-timer. Thanks!

Activity

skade

skade commented on Oct 17, 2019

@skade
Collaborator

Hm, I'm not quite sure if we should expose that or if we should maybe have a second library as a "futures development kit". Though futures-util is already that.

ghost

ghost commented on Oct 17, 2019

@ghost

Note that a good chunk of async-std uses no I/O and no dependencies (or just really small dependencies). Perhaps we should think of factoring that out into async-core or putting everything else behind a feature flag (perhaps named std).

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

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

        Participants

        @skade@yoshuawuyts

        Issue actions

          Should we expose task::AtomicWaker? · Issue #354 · async-rs/async-std