I also crossed issues but using something near R11.04. I believe it's better now, but did not use it in production
Jacques From: "Adrian Crum" <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> >I overhauled the Job Scheduler, so many of the problems you listed don't > exist anymore. > > -Adrian > > On 3/22/2013 6:32 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> and thank you for your feedback on Quartz. >> As regards the current job scheduler, there are a few issues that I often >> have to cope with in production, when the number of records in the >> JobSandbox grows over a certain limit (due to high load or to some failing >> job that is executed over and over); you can end up with db lock errors on >> the JobSandbox and the implementation of the service that cleans the old job >> (purgeOldJobs) is not ideal; that service also makes use of the >> ServiceSemaphore entity in order to guarantee that no more than one job at >> the time is run and I have some concerns about the reliability of this >> approach (race conditions, stale data); some interesting threads are: >> >> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Replace-JobManager-with-Quartz-Scheduler-td2999416.html >> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Job-Manager-td4635496.html >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.ofbiz.user/34131 >> >> On the other hand, the OFBiz job scheduler is used a lot and so it is >> "tested" every day in many production instances and, despite of some >> problems (some of them mentioned above), as you said, it just works. For >> this reason I agree that we should evaluate this (and similar other proposed >> in my first email) changes carefully before taking a decision. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Mar 22, 2013, at 12:26 AM, Paul Piper <p...@ilscipio.com> wrote: >> >>> I have worked with Quartz before - it is a fantastic solution, so I'd also >>> second that opinion of implementing Quartz as a replacement for the job >>> scheduler. The only point that would speak against it, is that I haven't >>> really had any issues with the current scheduler, so a replacement may not >>> be necessary and should be discussed whether it is a worthwhile venture. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Some-ideas-for-the-future-of-the-OFBiz-tp4639965p4639968.html >>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
