Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 340819

Summary:

The Jobs API should support a CommonJob

Product:

[Eclipse Project] Platform

Reporter:

Serge Beauchamp <serge>

Component:

Runtime

Assignee:

platform-runtime-inbox <platform-runtime-inbox>

Status:

CLOSED WONTFIX

QA Contact:

Severity:

normal

Priority:

CC:

jamesblackburn+eclipse, remy.suen, serge

Version:

3.7

Target Milestone:

---

Hardware:

OS:

Mac OS X - Carbon (unsup.)

Whiteboard:

stalebug

Attachments:

Description	Flags
First Draft Implementation	none
New implementation	none

Description Serge Beauchamp

2011-03-23 18:19:51 EDT

The Jobs API should support a CommonJob to share a common background thread so runnables that should not block the main thread, but are API rich, short lived, and make the Eclipse threading model unnecessarily complex can use.

Comment 1 Serge Beauchamp

2011-03-23 18:22:13 EDT

Created attachment 191800 [details]
First Draft Implementation

First Draft Implementation.

JUnit Test Code Coverage:

CommonJob.java:                  79.7%
CommonJobManager.java:  85.2%

Comment 2 Serge Beauchamp

2011-03-31 08:34:17 EDT

Please refer to the following 15 min presentation to give a perspective on the requirement for this feature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCeUO-kovFE

Comment 3 Serge Beauchamp

2011-04-01 06:34:02 EDT

Created attachment 192345 [details]
New implementation

Thanks James for your suggestions.

The new implementation:

  - supports CommonJob.asyncExec()
  - supports CommonJob.getThread(), which returns the common thread used for all CommonJobs.
  - The CommonJobManager now uses a real thread, instead of a Job, so that CommonJobs can rely on a single, identical thread being consistently used for executing code.
  - Comprehensive java docs 


JUnit Test Code Coverage:

CommonJob.java: 100%
CommonJobManager.java:  87.9%

Comment 4 Lars Vogel

2019-11-14 02:18:07 EST

This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet.

If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.

If the bug is still relevant, please remove the "stalebug" whiteboard tag.