ExoJob and ExoSimpleJob
Brian J. Tarricone
bjt23 at cornell.edu
Wed May 6 21:00:22 CEST 2009
Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 11:15:05 -0700
> "Brian J. Tarricone" <bjt23 at cornell.edu> wrote:
>> Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>> I've merged ExoJob and ExoSimpleJob into exo yesterday. They can be
>>> used to wrap long-running, possibly-blocking operations in order to
>>> execute them in an threaded/asynchronous and object-oriented way.
>>> ExoJob is an abstract class.
>> Possibly-stupid question, having not looked at it at all: any reason
>> why it's not a GInterface instead? Seems like it could be much more
>> flexible that way; you could turn pretty much *any* object into a job
>> (heh, which might be a bad idea).
> We could split it up into an ExoJob interface and an ExoAbstractJob
> class, yeah. Right now ExoJob is not an interface because it also hides
> all the threading/signalling complexity from subclasses. ExoAbstractJob
> could do the same. Thoughts?
Why can't the GInterface do all the thread stuff? Interfaces can have
code and chained sorta-vfuncs and whatnot...
More information about the Xfce4-dev