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
