Chaining jobs, subjobs

66 views
Skip to first unread message

MJo

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 2:32:48 AM12/3/14
to apsch...@googlegroups.com

Alex Grönholm

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 3:32:25 AM12/3/14
to apsch...@googlegroups.com
03.12.2014, 09:32, MJo kirjoitti:
Can you explain to me what the benefit of this would be, versus simply scheduling a function that does both things?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APScheduler" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apscheduler...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

MJo

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 4:06:59 AM12/3/14
to apsch...@googlegroups.com

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:32:25 AM UTC+2, Alex Grönholm wrote:
Can you explain to me what the benefit of this would be, versus simply scheduling a function that does both things?

Nothing special, just thought that would be appropriate divide huge functionality to smaller parts. E.g. do some network operation, then do some local things, then do some different network operation. Can be huge function. Another possibility is maybe divide functionality to different jobs and when one job successful then let it schedule next functionality so new job.

Alex Grönholm

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 8:11:23 AM12/3/14
to apsch...@googlegroups.com
Yep, there's nothing stopping you from doing this, although I wonder what difference it would make.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages