Curious whether you considered the Reactive stuff as a way to manage the asynchrony, i.e., generating Observables instead of Tasks, and having people have to reference a DLL or two from that.

Admittedly it's conceptually heavier and not a minimal solution to the problem, but it's more 'released' than the Async CTP.

Are you talking just taking the DLLs and running (and assuming they'll make it into SL5) or using the compiler too?

But then released is in the eye of the beholder when it's not all sitting in a public repo I guess.

Re public repo, I meant that the async CTP and the devlabs drops of RX are more or less equivalent in terms of usability for the world that doesnt want to get intimate with or take dependencies on release schedules:

a) whether they're final

b) whether one would expect to be able to see the source for <$35

c) whether one would expect to be able to send a patch

d) whether they can be expected to have a delivery mechanism that cant be broken by the release of ASP.NET MVC3

For others, the relevant DLL containing the TPL impl sits in <userprofiledir\Documents\Microsoft Visual Studio Async CTP\Samples after installation

Why isn't the API consistent with non-silverlight code ... I think it should be like this

var entity = new Company { Name = "Async Company #1", Id = "companies/1" };

using (var session = documentStore.OpenSessionAsync(dbname))

{

session.Store(entity);

session.SaveChanges(); // returns a task that completes asynchronously


 var query = session.Query

<company()

   .Where(x => x.Name == "Async Company #1")

   .ToList();  // returns a task that will execute the query

}

Which might be used also in non-silverlight environments too ...

Now that's a combination... Silverlight and RavenDB. Somehow I've got impression that the NoSQL guys are also the NoSilverlight guys. Am I being wrong?

@Ruben

Rx is a great system no doubt but on the WCF layer of things the path forward is unequivocally TPL. End of debate. It makes sense therefore for Oren to take this route with the SL Raven DB client for no reason more than convention with the rest of the stack.

However that doesn't mean whatsoever that you cannot use Rx wrapped over TPL in your higher layers. There's some handy extension methods out there for doing just that. Simply put, IMHO Rx is best on the, well ..., reacting side of things. TPL is a better fit for the doing the thing itself.

Service Call = doing.

Updating the UI based on the call -> Rx to the rescue.

=D

@Jimmy Zimmerman: Thanks for taking the time to lay it out that cleanly - makes sense.

I dont disagree with the perspective (reason I didnt respond to Ayende's response is that it's just correct!)

There's no doubt that, when compared to Rx, the Task <t stuff is

a) going to be native to SL in a future version

b) supported by he compiler enhacements

c) is simpler

d) is more likely to make it to the Phone (When you adding that, Oren? :P)

Therefore, unless one is going to get a significant benefit that outweighs the -100 points (@Raymond Chen) that adding another concept into the mix costs, sticking with the simplest thing definitely makes sense.

I was wondering purely about whether he'd considered/what his view was regarding the relative stability/availability of the relevant DLLs in question in the short to medium term and, implicit in that, whether he saw any angle/appropriateness for Rx when interacting with his lib making sense in any way.

There's a JavaScript API?

Does RavenDB support deployment to Azure just yet? I know a patch was in progress, has it hit the main build?

James,

See groups.google.com/.../106c848f86720386 for more info