Probably the best way to guard would be have the task name specific to the operation. You cant have another task with the same name for about a week,
T On Apr 23, 3:51 pm, hawkett <hawk...@gmail.com> wrote: > HI, > > I understand that it is possible for a single task to be executed more > than once, but is it safe to assume that only one instance of a > specific task will be executing at the one time? It makes it much more > difficult (time consuming) to implement idempotent behaviour if it is > possible for the subsequent executions of a task to begin before the > first has completed - i.e. for the same task to be executing > concurrently. I can think of ways of using db locking (memcache is not > reliable - especially when this scenario is most likely to occur > during system failures) to recognise the multiple concurrent > executions, but it would be great to know that this scenario cannot > occur. Thanks, > > Colin > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to google-appeng...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appeng...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
