@Mark: here cause tomee already has ee concurrency utilities which could be used to impl @Schedule(persistent=false) - just no will/need yet.
Le 5 janv. 2018 20:10, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit : > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:00 PM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Here's a more interesting thing, looks like for Quartz 2.3 they changed > from an opt out to an opt in - > https://github.com/quartz-scheduler/quartz/commit/ > dfe1e5a3cc248e2a46a6ea55567aaa6dc8e15ca5 > > John > > > > > > > > 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 > >> > > >> > >> >
