Skip to content

Correct task remote vs. local documentation #13502

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 21, 2024

Conversation

tjchambers
Copy link
Contributor

The listed examples had the headings reversed. This is a documentation only change.

The listed examples had the headings reversed. This is a documentation only change.
@whatyouhide
Copy link
Member

I think this was correct. You start the supervisor on the remote node. Then, you call Task.Supervisor.async on the client, passing in the name of the supervisor that was started on the remote node.

@josevalim
Copy link
Member

Yes, the current comments are correct. If you feel they can be clarified in other ways, please let us know!

@tjchambers
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the review!

I think what I misinterpreted was that this is a 2 step process and not an "either/or" . Perhaps if it said "First on the remote note ..." and then "Second on your local client" I would have seen this relationship clearly.

Thoughts? Open to just closing this now!

@josevalim
Copy link
Member

First and second sounds good!

Avoid interpretation of this as 2 indidependent steps, but rather a two-step process setting up the remote clients readiness and then making the appropriate local calls to initiate the task.
@tjchambers
Copy link
Contributor Author

I updated the text to my new interpretation. Please consider for re-review. Thanks!

@josevalim josevalim merged commit 6863a51 into elixir-lang:main Apr 21, 2024
@josevalim
Copy link
Member

💚 💙 💜 💛 ❤️

gldubc pushed a commit to gldubc/elixir that referenced this pull request Apr 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants