Creating a version of fyne.Do that does not wait

[andydotxyz]

Naming and implementation open for discussion

Checklist:

• Tests included.
• Lint and formatter run with no errors.
• Tests all pass.
• Public APIs match existing style and have Since: line.

[Jacalz]

I will review this further tomorrow but this does look great. The name is want I was going to suggest actually :)

[dweymouth]

should this function call just be converted to fyne.DoAsync?

[andydotxyz]

I'm not sure - that is going out of the driver to a utility function which does thread checks then back into the driver code - feels inefficient. Either way wouldn't it be the Sync/wait/fyne.Do version?

[andydotxyz]

I am wondering about naming - and defaults..

Should we change so fyne.Do, fyne.DoAsync = fyne.Wait, fyne.Do?

Although our driver code will more often than not want to wait (though even the async version maintains order of operations queued...) but for app developers won't the async version be more common? i.e. "I updated a value, now go refresh"...

[Jacalz]

Hmm. I think you are right. That does seem like a good change, though I hink I'd prefer fyne.WaitFor() over fyne.Wait() as it sounds more like you are waiting on what you passed in to be finished.

[dweymouth]

I don't like fyne.Wait on its own, but fyne.DoWait could be OK. I think having the "Do" verb in common for both names is important for clarity.

[Jacalz]

I´d personally prefer WaitFor given that DoWait and Wait seems to have the same logical meaning, at least to me, in the case of new names. Otherwise I'm really happy with this change. Nice catch with the more efficient thread scheduling.

[andydotxyz]

What about "DoAndWait" or "DoBlock"?

[Jacalz]

I'm a bit sceptical, sorry. I don't know what it is about it but having "block" in the name seems strange also sounds ass we are doing a block of something. I think what is in this PR is better in that case. One option is to just make fyne.Do() take a wait parameter?

[dweymouth]

The only naming thing I think is important is that the 2 are connected somehow, eg through a common verb like "Do", or through the wait bool param that @Jacalz suggested. I think whatever we settle on, it should be obvious just from the API naming that they are connected.

I wonder if, despite the verbosity in the common case, Do/DoAsync is the best name, though DoAndWait, or even DoWait, seems fine to me

[andydotxyz]

It seems like DoAndWait may satisfy all the comments above but I will sleep on it :).

[Jacalz]

I'm not 100% sold on DoAndWait but it isn't terrible so I don't wish to hold this up :)