> The last item Manik and I disagree on is use of DistributedTaskContext.
> DistributedTaskContext is given to each DistributedCallable once it has
> migrated to remote node for execution. DistributedTaskContext might
> evolve and I'd rather keep it in the framework while Manik wants to have
> a simple setter on DistributedCallable:
> setEnvironment(Cache, K...)
> I think of it as an insurance policy in case we need to bootstrap
> DistributedCallable with more parameters rather than only Cache and
> input keys K.
> Lets hear your thoughts and comments.
I like Vladimir's suggestion better.
At least in MC this design proved useful,
specially for the reason mentioned - evolution.
Otoh, we have a ton of features in MC, probably just from this decision,
as it was super easy to add them, but no-one uses them. :-)