----- Original message ----- > One possibility is that some cases may just be "these tasks must not run > in parallel" rather than an actual ordering. > > Also, I'm not sure all ordering constraints that are needed are > necessarily implemented. The whole thing feels messy to me. >
Agreed, we should probably consider each case individually, I noticed there's a configuration property that allows a TaskManager instance to be injected on a number of occasions too, which suggests there might be some sharing. Peter. > On 4/3/2013 2:04 PM, Dan Creswell wrote: > > I'm with you. My first step was going to be reviewing where runAfter is > > used, how often etc. I'd first like to be convinced that all the ordering > > constraints are actually required and can't be circumvented/dropped. > > > > On 3 April 2013 22:01, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > > > > I agree with the idea of understanding the use cases before designing the > > > solution, and with using standard API classes as much as possible. The > > > table I sent you was intended as a first step towards that. > > > > > > I'm not convinced that the right solution is a single TaskManager > > > successor. Different TaskManager instances may have different use cases, > > > and separating them may lead to several simpler solutions, each of which > > > as > > > a narrower set of requirements. >
