On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:21 PM Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
> > Shouldnąt we just disable the update check in our quartz configuration? > > Well there is a flag to disable this behaviour, but a.) it's hard to set > (requires -D) and it doesn't disable 100%. > The code still does some http calls out :/ > You can disable it programmatically. I've done wireshark checks, there is no other HTTP calls made out. Here's a quick patch that does it: https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/5a4fec98ff3f8f6ed6b54c36332bb8621cd3b09d John > > That's really bad, and the terracotta community (or rather the firm behind > it) declined to disable it by default since 2010 :/ > > @Tomas, yes there is additional effort to maintain it. But imo it's worth > it. > > @Romain, John the question for me is rather where we do like to keep the > code. > Either here in DeltaSpike or at geronimo? The reason is that we might also > later use this in other projects (TomEE) as well. > > For now I'd just start to play a bit with it over here and then we can > still move it around later. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > Am 05.01.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Arne Limburg < > arne.limb...@openknowledge.de>: > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > Shouldnąt we just disable the update check in our quartz configuration? > > > > Cheers, > > Arne > > > > > > Am 05.01.18 17:39 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter > > <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID>: > > > >> Hi folks! > >> Since I've now had a few complaints about Quartz 'phoning home' (totally > >> useless update check), I'm really inclined to just kick out quartz and > >> implement the Scheduler ourselves. > >> Implementing a proper Scheduler is not that complicated anyway, so do we > >> like to roll this ourselves? > >> Or do you think I underestimate the effort? > >> > >> LieGrue,strub > > > >
