Can we institute a "call back" mechanism to handle this issue in a way that
allows the "dependent" code to be run from the "after" task so that the
serialization of the work is explicitly specified?
Having a failed announcement come back might be appropriate too. It seems like
runAfter() doesn't allow for the tasks to talk to each other about whether
progress was made to allow the next step to proceed with any chance of success.
Something like the following might be appropriate.
public interface ExecuteAfter extends Runnable {
public void failed( Throwable ex, Object dependent );
}
Gregg
On 6/26/2011 3:23 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
There's an interesting thread of discussion in the Porter mail archive that Mark
has uploaded for us (see River-311), relating to the TaskManager.
Here's a very interesting comment from Bob Scheifler:
Over the years we've been slowly eliminating use of Task.runAfter, and
in any overhaul I'd prefer to finish that job rather than perpetuate it.
I have in a past life been a fan of deadline scheduling.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Peter.
