>>> But by then I couldn't really see what these classes offer. >> >> They offer exactly what was described earlier in the thread - a means for >> executing a set of tasks in sequence or in parallel. > > Unfortunately this thread is not referenced in the javadocs :) > As this thread's existence proves, the javadocs still left me with questions.
The Javadoc says pretty much the same thing as I wrote above: TaskSequence - "Class that runs a sequence of tasks in series and notifies listeners when all tasks are complete." TaskGroup - "Class that runs a group of tasks in parallel and notifies listeners when all tasks are complete." > I just didn't (and still don't) see much difference between these > classes and other utility methods or classes that have been > rejected/declined as not offering much that an individual developer > couldn't quickly knock up themselves, to their exact specifications. These classes add value because they address a common requirement for application developers. They are non-trivial and aren't likely to vary from application to application, so there's no need to force developers to write them themselves. G
