Peter Royal wrote: > > Why Quartz vs Event? > > Given the requirements that Vadim laid out: > > * Continuation manager. > Need to execute single task periodically. > * Store janitor. > Need to execute single task periodically. > * DefaultIncludeCacheManager. > Need to execute single task immideately, only once. > Need to execute multiple tasks immideately, only once. > * IncludeTransformer. > Need to execute multiple tasks immideately, only once. > > Sounds like the Event package would be a better fit. Or > creating our own as Stefano suggested (to be in control of > our destiny) -pete > I think the key point is that we are using Quartz as the implementation, but not as the interface. Now we already have the quartz block with the required implementation, so it's easy to use that. The first step is to do this move. If then someone things that an own implementation would be better, this can simply be changed without destroying compatibility.
Carsten
