They can be dissimilar, and it's pretty straightforward to implement that way (task-specific callbacks and task-specific configs). I'm treating Job and TaskGroup as the same thing, it's just that TaskGroup is somewhat confusing whereas Job defining a collection of tasks seems like standard terminology.
---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:59:56 -0700 > Subject: Re: Task framework terminology > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Does the Job need to have identical tasks or can they be dissimilar ? I am > thinking if introducing the concept of TaskGroup is needed ? > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]>wrote: > >> +1 >> >> LGTM >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kanak Biscuitwala <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to propose the following terminology for the task framework: >>> >>> Task - a single unit of work, corresponds to a Helix partition >>> Job - a group of tasks, corresponds to a Helix resource >>> Workflow - a group of jobs organized as a DAG, can be an optional >> construct >>> >>> Configuration is possible at each level. >>> >>> Does this sound reasonable? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kanak >>
