2.x: make parallel() a fusion-async-boundary #5677
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The
parallel()
supports front-fusion but since the operator is almost always followed by the separaterunOn
operator, the parallel version of theobserveOn
operator, such front-fusion should be considered aBOUNDARY
-type fusion just like withobserveOn
.A
requestFusion
withBOUNDARY
tells the upstream operator(s) that when fused, their actions would be executed behind an async boundary and possibly on an unwanted thread. Operators, such asmap
anddoOnNext
, who are generally expected to be thread-confined, can then refuse to fuse, restoring the traditional queue hopping behavior (source -> queue -> op -> queue -> op -> queue -> consumer
).Reported in #5676.
/cc @smaldini & @simonbasle