We are adding a blocking API for OpenDAL.


Blocking API is the most requested feature inside the OpenDAL community: Opendal support sync read/write API

Our users want blocking API for:

  • Higher performance for local IO
  • Using OpenDAL in a non-async environment

However, supporting sync and async API in current Rust is a painful job, especially for an IO library like OpenDAL. For example:

impl Object {
    pub async fn reader(&self) -> Result<impl BytesRead> {}

Supporting blocking API doesn't mean removing the async from the function. We should also handle the returning Reader:

impl Object {
    pub fn reader(&self) -> Result<impl Read> {}

Until now, I still don't know how to handle them correctly. But we need to have a start: not perfect, but enough for our users to have a try.

So this RFC is an experiment try to introduce blocking API support. I expect the OpenDAL community will evaluate those APIs and keep improving them. And finally, we will pick up the best one for stabilizing.

Guide-level explanation

With this RFC, we can call blocking API with the blocking_ prefix:

fn main() -> Result<()> {
    // Init Operator
    let op = Operator::from_env(Scheme::Fs)?;

    // Create object handler.
    let o = op.object("test_file");

    // Write data info object;
    o.blocking_write("Hello, World!")?;

    // Read data from object;
    let bs = o.blocking_read()?;

    // Read range from the object;
    let bs = o.blocking_range_read(1..=11)?;

    // Get the object's path
    let name =;
    let path = o.path();

    // Fetch more meta about the object.
    let meta = o.blocking_metadata()?;
    let mode = meta.mode();
    let length = meta.content_length();
    let content_md5 = meta.content_md5();
    let etag = meta.etag();

    // Delete object.

    // List dir object.
    let o = op.object("test_dir/");
    let mut ds = o.blocking_list()?;
    while let Some(entry) = ds.try_next()? {
        let path = entry.path();
        let mode = entry.mode();


All async public APIs of Object and Operator will have a sync version with blocking_ prefix. And they will share precisely the same semantics.

The differences are:

  • They will be executed and blocked on the current thread.
  • Input and output's Reader will become the blocking version like std::io::Read.
  • Output's DirStreamer will become the blocking version like Iterator.

Thanks to RFC-0501: New Builder, all our builder-related APIs have been transformed into blocking APIs, so we don't change our initiation logic.

Reference-level explanation

Under the hood, we will add the following APIs in Accessor:

trait Accessor {
    fn blocking_create(&self, args: &OpCreate) -> Result<()>;
    fn blocking_read(&self, args: &OpRead) -> Result<BlockingBytesReader>;
    fn blocking_write(&self, args: &OpWrite, r: BlockingBytesReader) -> Result<u64>;
    fn blocking_stat(&self, args: &OpStat) -> Result<ObjectMetadata>;
    fn blocking_delete(&self, args: &OpDelete) -> Result<()>;
    fn blocking_list(&self, args: &OpList) -> Result<DirIterator>;


  • BlockingBytesReader is a boxed std::io::Read.
  • All blocking operations are happening on the current thread.
  • Blocking operation is implemented natively, no futures::block_on.


Two sets of APIs

This RFC will add a new set of APIs, adding complicity for OpenDAL.

And users may misuse them. For example: using blocking_read in an async context could block the entire thread.

Rationale and alternatives

Use features to switch async and sync

Some crates provide features to switch the async and sync versions of API.

In this way:

  • We can't provide two kinds of API at the same time.
  • Users must decide to use async or sync at compile time.

Use blocking IO functions in local fs services

Can we use blocking IO functions in local fs services to implement Accessor's asynchronous functions directly? What is the drawback of our current non-blocking API?

We can't run blocking IO functions inside the async context. We need to let the local thread pool execute them and use mio to listen to the events. If we do so, congrats, we are building tokio::fs again!

Prior art


Unresolved questions


Future possibilities