Associate the async service to the TaskExecutor

[duntzer]

I think this example misses the association between the task executor and the service in an unfortunate way, i.e. how this is being set up (quote from the Javadoc): "By default, Spring will be searching for an associated thread pool definition: either a unique TaskExecutor bean in the context, or an Executor bean named "taskExecutor" otherwise. If neither of the two is resolvable, a SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor will be used to process async method invocations."

I think it could be beneficial for this guide, and for the possibility of using this code as a template, to add an explicit association between the executor and the async service by naming the executor bean and specifying the name of if in the @async annotation.

Otherwise I think it would be good to rename the the Executor bean to the expected name "taskExecutor"

[dsyer]

The javadocs you are quoting must be wrong (or the wrong ones) then, right, because the app works and you can tell from the logs that it is using the provided Executor? Where did you find that exactly?

[duntzer]

Yes the app i absolutely working, but I think it is not suitable as an example because it is such a fragile solution.
In this case, the Executor bean is unique in the context and therefore is works, bur if you add a secondary Executor bean for some other reason somewhere in the context, it will stop working and instead revert to the default SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor

[duntzer]

and the javadoc is from here: https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/javadoc-api/org/springframework/scheduling/annotation/EnableAsync.html

[duntzer]

so this is what I'm proposing could be used instead: https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/integration.html#scheduling-annotation-support-qualification

[dsyer]

That makes sense. We could just use the fallback name "taskExecutor". I think I would prefer that, and an explanation of why it's a good idea. Do you want to propose a change?

[duntzer]

ok sounds good, I'll do that!

[dsyer]

Fixed via #13