Re: Project scheduling

Ok, fine by me. I think you should keep a flag which records
whether or not a task participates in the schedule, though. That
way the user can have tasks that are not part of the schedule 
(e.g. "bring ethernet cable to work tomorrow"), and it should also
allow less memory usage (start/end times don't need Date objects, etc.)
I'd suggest having an enum called "schedule-type" in the use task;
it can have these values:  NONE, MILESTONE, TASK.
(Milestones are treated differently from tasks in scheduling;
they have no associated effort/duration, but typically depend
on tasks. E.g. the "beta" milestone depends on features X,Y,Z to
be complete.)  User tasks typically have type "NONE", but if you
add them to the schedule, they get either MILESTONE or TASK 
assigned.

Does that make sense? (And yes, in jdk 1.5 we'll get real enums.
So you can use it in the project scheduling code for
NetBeans 7.0 :) 

-- Tor

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Trond Norbye wrote:

 | 
 | Hello everybody ;)
 | 
 | I read Tor's "proposal" for the scheduler, and I have some comments...
 | 
 | I would like to go for the solution where we "pollute" the UserTask class
 | with all of the project information. I would even go so far that I would
 | allow the user to add this information even if the scheduler is "missing".
 | 
 | What is so "bad" about giving a user the opportunity to specify start,
 | stop, depend upon, estimated efford, amount left etc for a task???
 | 
 | This would also ease the "integration" of the scheduler implementation
 | (I'll guess some of us would like to commit code before we have a 100%
 | finished scheduler, or do some of you really take backup of your
 | computer???)
 | 
 | So I would like to avoid adding a new type of task object (ScheduleTask)..
 | 
 | Any comments???
 | 
 | Trond
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
 | For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
 | 
 |