{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/threadly/threadly/issues/194","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/threadly/threadly","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/threadly/threadly/issues/194/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/threadly/threadly/issues/194/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/threadly/threadly/issues/194/events","html_url":"https://github.com/threadly/threadly/issues/194","id":129494181,"number":194,"title":"Prototype and benchmark non-fair executor","user":{"login":"jentfoo","id":2165757,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2165757?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo","html_url":"https://github.com/jentfoo","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jentfoo/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/threadly/threadly/labels/enhancement","name":"enhancement","color":"84b6eb"}],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":5,"created_at":"2016-01-28T16:07:58Z","updated_at":"2016-02-11T18:23:09Z","closed_at":"2016-02-11T18:23:09Z","body":"This is an idea I have been mauling over in my head.  I would like to see if we could create an executor with a very fast concurrent structure, but one which is not really a queue.  One which tries to just flow tasks through it as fast as possible, and thus has no guarantees around fairness or starvation.\r\n\r\nThis obviously would not be to replace our current pools, but to just offer another option.  I am convinced that in 95% of use cases a scheduler like this could likely be used without issue.  But it obviously would only be worth it if the performance is there to justify it."}}