Oh, OK. I thought you were offering that as an argument against implementing Group. Sorry.
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Chris Bartlett wrote: > Um, I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be a Group. My point was > that it merely being a Group doesn't tell the whole story about how > the tasks might get executed. That is where a bit of documentation > comes in handy. > > On 1 August 2011 20:26, Greg Brown <gk_br...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> I think the strongest argument for Group is that allowing duplicates could >>>> result in confusing behavior. Making it a Group ensures that the intent is >>>> clear. >>> >>> Making it a Group certainly helps with the intent, but wouldn't >>> eliminate confusing behaviour entirely as my example of the >>> 'SingleThreadExecutor' suggests. Better that just accepting a >>> Collection / Iterable / Array or whatever. >> >> True, but it would help eliminate confusion for the common case. I think a >> more important question is - what do you lose by enforcing uniqueness? The >> only thing a Sequence would allow you to do is ensure that a given task type >> is executed in series while all other tasks are executed in parallel, which >> seems like a pretty narrow case. It is also something that can be >> implemented at the application level for any app that might actually need it. >> >> G >> >>
