Re: [DISCUSS] HasDependencies tagging interface

Yes, this was my intention. In our case, the required additional classes can be determined dynamically based on configuration. It makes sense for the code that does this determination to live with the runnable rather than the controller. -Martin On 01/17/2017 09:08 PM, Andreas Neumann

Re: [DISCUSS] HasDependencies tagging interface

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

Re: [DISCUSS] HasDependencies tagging interface

Hi Martin, Is it not doable via the TwillPreparer.withDependencies method? Terence On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Martin Serrano wrote: > Team, > > I have some untraceable dependencies for one of my runnables. It occurs > to me that preparing and launching the runnable

[DISCUSS] HasDependencies tagging interface

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