On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Ioannis Canellos ioca...@gmail.com wrote:
I am glad that I see so much interest in it.
It would make sense to use quartz instead of Java Timer mostly due to the
fact that quartz supports thread pooling while timers don't. So, I think
that it would be a good
The JDK Timer is kinda @deprecated in favor of the
ScheduledExecutorService in Java5+.
The latter supports thread pooling.
Thanks Claus for bringing this up. For me this is enough. If you think that
we should still use quartz to take advantage of features like persistence,
clustering etc,
Well, honestly, I'm not sure it's really worth the pain if the goal is
simply to avoid using
Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor().schedule(runnable,
delay, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)
If there's a need to manage recurrent tasks, we need to have a full
featured engine for that and have a
Do you think that it worths using quartz instead?
On Friday, July 22, 2011, Guillaume Nodet gno...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, honestly, I'm not sure it's really worth the pain if the goal is
simply to avoid using
Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor().schedule(runnable,
delay,
