Hi Giuseppe,
with the Job component implemented and configured it seems to work, thanks.
In the meantime, reading the documentation I found this sentence in the
DevGuide [1], at the beginning:
"
...
If both are available, the synchronous service AsyncJob is preferred by
the job execution environment.
"
The words "synchronous service" and "AsyncJob" seem a little out of
'sync' here.
Not sure which of the job possible type takes precedence over the other.
I'll use a XJob interface only, so I don't need that deep understanding,
but that sentence needs to be corrected, I think.
Unfortunately I don't know which way to correct it...
Or may be it's just me not understanding :-).
Seams to be a simple typo ...
The sentence should be:
"If both are available, the synchronous interface is preferred by
the job execution environment."
On the implementation side it's more easy than you think :-)
For you there exists two possibilities to implement a job:
a) the synchronous way using XJob or
b) the asynchronous way using XAsynchronousJob.
It depends from our use cases which interface should
be used/implemented and supported by your job implementation.
Sometimes it happened that a programmer decided to support BOTH
interfaces at the same implementation. Dont ask me why ? :-)
So I've decided to implement a mechanism which preferres one interface
in such case - and thats the synchronous interface XJob.
Best Regards
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
