Is `scope.launch(<http://Dispatchers.IO|Dispatchers.IO> + SupervisorJob()) { ... }` a good shorthand...

# coroutines

[reactormonk]

Is scope.launch(<http://Dispatchers.IO|Dispatchers.IO> + SupervisorJob()) { ... } a good shorthand for when I want to fire & forget?

[ephemient]

if you're sure that's what you want to do, I'd explicitly write out GlobalScope to make it obvious the job isn't scoped (that's effectively GlobalScope.launch(<http://Dispatchers.IO|Dispatchers.IO>) { ... })

[Youssef Shoaib [MOD]]

I think you might want to pass the parent job to SupervisorJob so that the supervisor and all its children is cancelled when the parent is cancelled. The way to do that is like: scope.coroutineContext[Job]

[ephemient]

in that case you might as well use supervisorScope {

[Zach Klippenstein (he/him) [MOD]]

If you intentionally want to break structured concurrency, all you need is an orphan job. Choice of supervisor or not, and dispatcher, don’t have anything to do with “fire-and-forget”.

[Zach Klippenstein (he/him) [MOD]]

Of course, i would advise not to break structured concurrency in the first place.

[reactormonk]

So you have to explicitly add the job of the current scope as parent as not to commit heresy against structured concurrency?

[ephemient]

yes but then you also keep the parent job alive as long as the child is running, which makes it effectively the same as supervisorScope {}

[Zach Klippenstein (he/him) [MOD]]

Also launch does that itself, so if you dont want to violate SC then just don’t pass a job at all (unless you specifically want the supervisor type)