Op 11-9-2013 17:19, David Faure schreef: >> Couldn't such a class be part of the hopefully coming QtConcurrent >> replacement? > Can we forget about threads for a second? No, I'd rather not forget that huge pink elephant in the room... In this age of multi-core systems being the norm rather than exception, we simply cannot ignore threads when designing a generic API for asynchronous jobs. > > The main point of event-driven jobs is to have them use the event loop, NOT > threads. That sounds pointless to me. Why would you design an API for asynchronous jobs, but limit that to those jobs that use the eventloop? What does the user of the API really care what the API does to pull of the async-ness? Compare with QNAM: it uses threading too in the background, doesn't it?
To me, a generic job API only makes sense if the API makes sense for all async operations, no matter if the job itself uses threading or the eventloop to work. Both should work equally well, and have equal support IMHO. André -- You like Qt? I am looking for collegues to join me at i-Optics! _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development