river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: test failure repeatability - TaskManager
Date Sat, 06 Apr 2013 00:28:07 GMT

----- 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 <pats@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.
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message