my tasks names continue like randomname1 - samerandomname2 - samerandomname3, so in the case that samerandomname2 is executed AGAIN, it can't continue by creating samerandomname3, right? Of course there will be side effects from randomname2, but they are bearable
The previous method I was using was to check for samerandomname2 as a key_name in a model, but the problem with that route is that, if samerandomname2 fails without creating samerandomname3, the loss is great So a DB limitation causes a big loss, while a task_name limitation may cause a small side effect Any caveats with my way of thinking? On Mar 24, 9:18 pm, Darien Caldwell <darien.caldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well the fact that I said "I have seen it happen" should be > sufficient. Believe me, I wouldn't have bothered with all the rewrites > if it didn't. -- 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-appengine@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.
