There are quite a few negative views of Quartz online. And possibly it isn't the right way to go. But I will push the branch in case someone wants to take a look at what I tried.
Cheers Niclas On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Kent Sølvsten <[email protected]> wrote: > A shame :-( > > I think you should push it somewhere to preserve it for now. > > My gut feeling is that (some day) we should improve enterprise > integration ... > something involving coordination between an XA transaction and a UOW > - and then use a JDBCJobStore with global transactions. > > That could potentially solve a lot of problems in EE deployments - and a > RamJobStore might be sufficient for SE (standalone) deployments. > > But i admit, I dont know how (yet) to accomplish that integration - > implementing an XA resource is probably too complicated and hopefully > unnecessary. > > /Kent > > Den 29-11-2015 kl. 05:45 skrev Niclas Hedhman: > > Gang, > > I have now spent too many weekends on the Scheduler library. > > > > a. What we have doesn't work as expected. > > > > b. I have not been able to fix it. > > > > c. I have tried to use Quartz by re-implementing a JobStore, backed by > > our persistence. It is highly complicated. Quartz have not managed to > > separate the concerns well enough, and too much JDBC assumptions are in > > place. I give up on this. I can push my local branch on what I have done, > > if someone is interested in picking this up and run with it. > > > > d. Other hacks are possible, but simply feels utterly wrong. Having a > RAM > > based JobStore, and try to populate that from our persistence by > listening > > in on events MIGHT work. I am not going to try. > > > > I still think that the library is an excellent idea, and wish that we > could > > get it to work. But I think I need to move on to other things to fix. > This > > is simply beyond me. > > > > Any feedback? > > > > Cheers > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
