Runnable is simply an interface. A class may implement Runnable but that does not mean the class will start another thread or be used by another thread, only that it can be.
Personally, for me, much of the code I would write, would benefit from threads and I regularly use them or use classes that use threads. I suppose I could write code that didn't use threads so it would specifically run in the app engine infrastructure, but that might often mean that I would have to have one version of the code for the app engine and another version to run elsewhere (on servers I control/ own/lease for example). At what point that I need the features of the Google App Engine and they outweigh the convenience/flexibility of running my apps on my own conventional servers - I don't know - but it certainly caught my eye that I couldn't use threads. On Apr 8, 5:15 am, Shawn Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > No Threads? > > > A Java application cannot create a new java.lang.ThreadGroup nor a > > new java.lang.Thread. These restrictions also apply to JRE classes that make > > use of threads. For example, an application cannot create a > > new java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor, or a java.util.Timer. An > > application can perform operations against the current thread, such > > asThread.currentThread().dumpStack(). > > What about runnable? > > Runnable is implemented by class Thread. > Runnable provides the means for a class to be active while not > subclassing Thread > > But...still, I think that it wouldn't work. > > Can anyone please confirm this? > > Shawn --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
