Why is this needed? If the tasks need to be durable, then they probably don't need to be throttled in the first place. Do only some of the tasks need this?

Why is this needed? If the tasks need to be durable, then they probably don't need to be throttled in the first place. Do only some of the tasks need this?

Good question 😄 Only some of the tasks need this. For instance, the *PercentageTask writes updates every time Count() is called, and usually gets throttled. The *ListTask type (see: #2335) yields updates at an unknown rate, but it's important that all updates are logged. In other words, ListTask satisfies DurableTask, but *PercentageTask does not.

Ah, that makes sense after looking at that PR. I would just add Durable() to the base Task interface, since there are only a few task types. What do you think about Throttled() for a name instead of Durable()?

Ah, that makes sense after looking at that PR.

Thanks for taking a look, and sorry for not explaining things more thoroughly in this PR.

I would just add Durable() to the base Task interface, since there are only a few task types.

Good call, I like the explicitness of being able to declare that a task is Durable() or not per task. I added that in a7a99e5, 8c64a43 & 5223586.

What do you think about Throttled() for a name instead of Durable()?

I think I prefer the Durable() name, since Throttled() feels like a negated conditional.

I just don't think Durable accurately describes what is happening. Maybe I'm just used to seeing that word in the context of a data store.