![]() Please wait while updating issue type...
Could not save your changes
This issue has been changed since you started editing it
Data that has been changed is highlighted in red below. Undo your changes to see the updated information
You have changed this issue, but haven't saved your changes yet. To save it, press the Save changes button to the right
This issue is blocking the next release
![]() There are no comments
There is nothing attached to this issue
This issue has no duplicates
c59b815
Oct 18, 09:00 - Preceeded by 5f9c13fc82df4f6e7320878558ccec8350ab6070
Log entry
implemented issue JPPF-551 in master Changed files
Affected issues
cd31122
Oct 18, 09:03 - Preceeded by d2a1362abe57e3d10f4e727b7ff0e577b2bc57f2
Log entry
implemented issue JPPF-551 in b_6_0 Changed files
Affected issues
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Really delete this comment?
Really delete this comment?
Really delete this comment?
Furthermore, I also propose to add the methods setDefaultExecutionPolicy(ExecutionPolicy) and getDefaultExecutionPolicy() to JPPFClient (or one of its superclasses), so the same functionality can be achieved programmatically as well.
Really delete this comment?
Really delete this comment?
sure, looks perfect
Is this the right place for that method? What would happen if one submits job with policy set and client has default policy defined?
marcin
Really delete this comment?
A non-null default policy would only apply to jobs whose policy is null. That's my understanding of what default policy means.
Also, keep in mind that you can have multiple instances of JPPFClient, each potentially with its own configuration (via the JPPFClient(TypedProperties config) constructor). We must preserve the flexibility this provides. So yes, I believe JPPFClient is where the default policy accessors should be.
Note that you can also easily implement a default policy feature by subclassing JPPFClient and overriding its submitJob(JPPFJob) method, for example like this:
Really delete this comment?
Really delete this comment?