Re: Project scheduling

I had one more thought. I'd like to get the tasklist stable
soon (so we can get included in NetBeans 3.5/4.0).  I'm not
sure how soon you'll be able to get the project scheduler
module stable.

So, it would be ideal if you can make your changes such that
the scheduling stuff (in usertasks) only show up when the
project schedule module is running. 

Doing that is pretty simple - you can add a file entry
in the system file system (the mf-layer file in the scheduling
module) and then check for the existence of this file from
the usertasks module, to set a "scheduling" flag somewhere
in the usertasks module which you then use to control whether
or not scheduling attributes show up in the property sheet,
the New Task dialog, etc.

I can write that fragment if you'd like. My main point here
is to try to localize your project-specific stuff as much
as possible such that we can "feature freeze" the usertasks
module when 3.5/4.0 gets to the beta stage soon.

-- Tor

On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 14:35, Tor Norbye wrote:
> 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]
>  | 
>  | 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
-- 
Tor Norbye <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems, Inc