On 27 July 2011 21:51, Greg Brown <gk_br...@verizon.net> wrote: >> 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:
With the crucial exception of how they accomplish what they accomplish, and in particular, the use of a supplied ExecutorService. This is a bit of a weird discussion to be having, because if the javadocs included more information (such as the info in this thread), then the thread would probably not exist. But they don't, so it does :) > 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 think you would agree that those single statements and the others in the javadocs are not sufficient to understand how the tasks are executed and therefore when it might be appropriate to use these classes ... >> 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. ... especially if their implementations are considered non-trivial. I see this primarily as a case of missing/lacking javadocs. The purpose of the classes was not sufficiently clear to me as a consumer, hence the original post. More detail in the javadocs might save others the time that I lost. Chris
