Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lets look, instead, at Thomas' motivation for the TaskContainer - > multithreading of tasks.
OK, another use case and one I can support - and comparing Thomas' approach with yours, his is obviously clearer and more explicit, hence the one I'd prefer. > Do we make <parallel> a special tag recognized by projectHelper? Sounds artificial to me. This means we'd delibaretly lock out people wanting to write a <foreach> task from functionality that is already there. > The question has become whether we want to allow for generalized > task composition, available to all tasks or to limit task > composition to two situations (targets and parallel threads), the > knowledge of which is embedded in the core. I've already said I'd be -0 for generalized task composition, this hasn't changed. And I could live with restricting it to <parallel> and <target>, with an uneasy feeling. > and I think it is only fair to him that we decide on the concept > before he goes ahead with that.. Sure enough. Stefan
