On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> But keeping it simple here means leaving out any thread stuff and
> leaving it as a simple Runnable implementation. The more you include
> and hide, the more you reduce flexibility.
>
+1! What's with this obsession over holding the use
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:11 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 30 September 2010 12:06, James Carman wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:01 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> So how about allowing the user to pass in an Executor when creating
>>> the instance?
>>> Would that be sufficient?
>>>
>>
>> KISS.
On 30 September 2010 12:06, James Carman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:01 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> So how about allowing the user to pass in an Executor when creating
>> the instance?
>> Would that be sufficient?
>>
>
> KISS. Why add complexity here if it's not needed? Leaving it as
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:06 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:01 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> So how about allowing the user to pass in an Executor when creating
>> the instance?
>> Would that be sufficient?
>>
>
> KISS. Why add complexity here if it's not needed? Leaving
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:01 AM, sebb wrote:
>
> OK.
>
> So how about allowing the user to pass in an Executor when creating
> the instance?
> Would that be sufficient?
>
KISS. Why add complexity here if it's not needed? Leaving it as a
Runnable allows the user to choose how to run it.
---
On 30 September 2010 06:39, Julien Aymé wrote:
> 2010/9/30 sebb :
>> On 30 September 2010 02:58, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:46 AM, sebb wrote:
Just wondering if the Tailer API could be simplified by performing the
thread start within the class?
Is it
2010/9/30 sebb :
> On 30 September 2010 02:58, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:46 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> Just wondering if the Tailer API could be simplified by performing the
>>> thread start within the class?
>>> Is it ever going to be useful to have direct access to tailer thr
On 30 September 2010 02:58, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:46 AM, sebb wrote:
>> Just wondering if the Tailer API could be simplified by performing the
>> thread start within the class?
>> Is it ever going to be useful to have direct access to tailer thread?
>> I suspect not,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:46 AM, sebb wrote:
> Just wondering if the Tailer API could be simplified by performing the
> thread start within the class?
> Is it ever going to be useful to have direct access to tailer thread?
> I suspect not, as the Listener should provide sufficient access.
>
> It's
Just wondering if the Tailer API could be simplified by performing the
thread start within the class?
Is it ever going to be useful to have direct access to tailer thread?
I suspect not, as the Listener should provide sufficient access.
It's not safe to start a thread in the constructor (unless th
10 matches
Mail list logo