Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Consistent ErrorHandler support in TaskScheduler variants #32460

Closed
jhoeller opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 0 comments
Closed

Consistent ErrorHandler support in TaskScheduler variants #32460

jhoeller opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
@jhoeller
Labels
in: core Issues in core modules (aop, beans, core, context, expression) type: enhancement A general enhancement
Milestone
6.2.0-M1

Comments

@jhoeller
Copy link
Contributor

Related to #23755, there is another area of inconsistency among Spring's TaskScheduler implementations: ErrorHandler support. While ThreadPoolTaskScheduler applies a configured ErrorHandler to all scheduler and executor operations, ConcurrentTaskScheduler only applies it to scheduler operations (but not the executor operations inherited from ConcurrentTaskExecutor), and SimpleAsyncTaskScheduler does not have a configurable ErrorHandler at all (just default error handling with recent refinements: #32298, #32381). This should be made as consistent as possible in 6.2.
@jhoeller jhoeller added in: core Issues in core modules (aop, beans, core, context, expression) type: enhancement A general enhancement labels Mar 15, 2024
@jhoeller jhoeller added this to the 6.2.0-M1 milestone Mar 15, 2024
@jhoeller jhoeller self-assigned this Mar 15, 2024
@jhoeller jhoeller mentioned this issue Mar 15, 2024
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@jhoeller jhoeller

Labels
in: core Issues in core modules (aop, beans, core, context, expression) type: enhancement A general enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
6.2.0-M1
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@jhoeller