I guess the difference is decoupling of the preparer from the runnable.
Martin's approach makes it a property of the runnable itself, so the
preparer can derive this information. That is, I can modify my runnable
without having to modify my invocation of the preparer.
Thoughts?
-Andreas.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Terence Yim <cht...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Is it not doable via the TwillPreparer.withDependencies method?
>
> Terence
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Martin Serrano <mar...@attivio.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Team,
> >
> > I have some untraceable dependencies for one of my runnables. It occurs
> > to me that preparing and launching the runnable is not always the best
> > place to define these dependencies (using withDependences method). The
> > runnable itself will always have these deps (there is static xml
> > configuration embedded in the lib). What would folks think of the idea
> of
> > a tagging interface that TwillPreparer would check and insert the deps
> > itself.
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > public interface HasDependencies {
> >
> > Iterable<Class<?>> dependencies();
> >
> > }
> >
> > This interface could be added to any implementation of TwillRunnable.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -Martin
> >
> >
>
