Re: Taking 'Access of single task/protected object

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote in message 
news:n6m9s5$gs7$1@dont-email.me...
...
> Presumably the desire is to have multiple single tasks, all with an entry
> Something, so that the operations of the type can call different tasks. In 
> this
> situation, there would be a finite set of known single tasks, so the type 
> could
> hold the task ID of the appropriate task, and operations could select the 
> task
> to call based on the ID.

That's the point of task interfaces: each such task would have the task 
interface as a progenitor. You'd still need to give the task type a name, 
but what's the harm in that? There's no reason to use a single task other 
than convinience, and once you're code gets complex enough, "convinience" 
should be the last of your concerns.

                            Randy.

>Jeff Carter
>"My brain hurts!"

Seems appropriate when talking about task interfaces. ;-)





> -- 
> Jeff Carter
> "My brain hurts!"
> Monty Python's Flying Circus
> 21