Hi,

I was hoping to get some feedback on the idea of changing spin_until_future_complete to spin_until_complete. When writing application code with actions / services, I run into extending lines often while spinning to see if the server was completed. This is it of itself isn't a big deal, but I wonder if we can't shorten it a bit. I'm not sure what the "future" part of the API provides. The input is a future, but we don't have publish_message(msg) we just have publish(msg).

So I propose changing spin_until_future_complete(future) to spin_until_complete(future) which I think semantically makes more sense and also opens the opportunity in future redesigns to use other mechanics other than futures to spin under the same API without adding a few different spin_until_XYZ_complete(). This certainly isn't an earth-shattering suggestion, but if you think this would be agreeable, I'd be happy to help implement.