>> I think that making TaskGroup a Group was a mistake on my part. There is no >> need to ensure uniqueness here.
Actually, it just occurred to me that uniqueness, while not strictly required, should certainly be encouraged. If you added the same task to a ParallelTaskGroup's task sequence more than once, you'd basically get serialized behavior, since only one thread could run the task at a time. So perhaps a Group is actually appropriate. Further, it occurred to me that TaskSequence (or SerialTaskGroup) is not really all that useful, since it effectively executes the tasks synchronously. The main value of a Task (or more generally, a thread) is concurrency. Any old procedural code can run tasks in series. Worse, TaskSequence executes sub-tasks by creating (or at least obtaining) a new thread per task, which isn't really necessary. The same results could be achieved by simply calling the synchronous version of execute() (the one that doesn't take a listener argument) on each task in the list. So, I'm actually thinking that: a) TaskSequence should be deprecated/removed b) TaskGroup is actually an appropriate name :-) G
