By that logic, we'd need to qualify every class in the frame work. E.g. we wouldn't just have a "Button", we'd have a "ButtonComponent". That is obviously overkill, and I think it would be overkill here as well.
On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Chris Bartlett wrote: > On 27 July 2011 23:43, Greg Brown <gk_br...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> I suppose I saw it as a ParallelTaskExecutor or TaskGroupExecutor, and >>> not a ParallelTask or TaskGroupTask. This is probably where the >>> initial confusion came from. >> >> I can understand that. OTOH, TaskGroupTask (or ParallelTaskGroupTask) is >> sort of verbose and arguably redundant, and as you noted, once you recognize >> that TaskGroup and TaskSequence extend Task, the existing behavior makes >> more sense. >> > > (I was/am not pushing to change the names - just explaining how I came > to the conclusions I did) > > Long, but I wouldn't say verbose. Especially in the world of (pre > 1.7) java generics! > > The name 'TaskGroupTask' captures something that is lost when the last > 'Task' is removed. That information is obviously available in the > javadocs themselves, source code or your IDE of choice, but it clearly > passed me by. Arguably, a total lack of javadocs might have helped me > pick up on the fact that it is just a Task. > > While TaskGroupTask initially looks redundant, I think it is easily > justifiable simply because it is a Task that does something with a > Group of Tasks (which in Pivot would be called a TaskGroup) > > GroupedTask is shorter and makes it clear that it is a Task but loses > something along the way. What is it that is grouped? > GroupedTasksTask is just hideous ;)
