At 10:42 17/4/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:09 PM >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Task API > > >> At 08:12 17/4/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote: >> >> * tasks should have access to its own XML representation. >> >> >> >> /Task Object Model instead of XML representation/ >> > >> >-1. >> >> How do you propose to do container tasks? > >What is a container task? (I could guess, just want to be clear)
Tasks that contain other tasks (parralele/if/then/case/whatever). >Well, The requirement and how it is done are two separate things. I don't >believe all tasks need to have access to their Task Object Model. agreed. >My idea >of container tasks is that there will be a separate interface implemented >by those tasks which will give the container the definitions of the >contained tasks. precisely. >So, it may be required for some tasks, but not for all. So why did you -1 it? ;) Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
