Update async.md for 1.0 and Threading

[LilithHafner]

Closes #636
Closes #640

[tknopp]

I would actually remove the multi-process version.

[LilithHafner]

I was inclined to keep it and list it first because when running the default julia -t1 the Distributed approach works for me and the Threads approach stalls the UI. Why do you prefer the single-process version?

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2791421964

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-1.6%) to 63.03%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 2758684380:	-1.6%
Covered Lines:	1635
Relevant Lines:	2594

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2791421964

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 70.193%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 2758684380:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	1785
Relevant Lines:	2543

---

💛 - Coveralls

[tknopp]

Because ist just works in toy examples for me. If the callback needs to call package code one needs to run Julia with -p and "@Everywhere using ...". Data exchange ist also more complicated. For me the multi-threaded version is much simpler.

If I see it right, Julia 1.8 will give us the second thread by default.

[LilithHafner]

If the callback needs to call package code one needs to run Julia with -p and "@Everywhere using ...". Data exchange ist also more complicated.

Noted. Threading certainly has advantages and should probably be listed first.

If I see it right, Julia 1.8 will give us the second thread by default.

Where did you see that?

x@X ~ % julia +beta
               _
   _       _ _(_)_     |  Documentation: https://docs.julialang.org
  (_)     | (_) (_)    |
   _ _   _| |_  __ _   |  Type "?" for help, "]?" for Pkg help.
  | | | | | | |/ _' |  |
  | | |_| | | | (_| |  |  Version 1.8.0-rc3 (2022-07-13)
 _/ |\__'_|_|_|\__'_|  |  Official https://julialang.org/ release
|__/                   |

julia> Threads.nthreads()
1

In 1.9 we will have interactive threads which should make the threading approach more robust:

"Threads.@Spawn now accepts an optional first argument: :default or :interactive. An interactive task desires low latency and implicitly agrees to be short duration or to yield frequently. Interactive tasks will run on interactive threads, if any are specified when Julia is started ([#42302])." (https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/df846436bb91b291be988f5e18e256d514b97347/NEWS.md)

I think the best option is probably to recommend threads and then afterward, note that Distributed is also an option with caveats.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #656 (a27145e) into master (ac0ec81) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #656   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   65.60%   65.60%           
=======================================
  Files          32       32           
  Lines        2721     2721           
=======================================
  Hits         1785     1785           
  Misses        936      936           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[tknopp]

🙁 I thought this would be in 1.8.

But anyway. I like your suggestion of just switching the order.

[tknopp]

thanks!