Once again I feel your pain Niclas. I recall coming up to the same conclusion: Quartz is not extensible enough and tied to JDBC.
XA/UoW orchestration sounds like something that could open up for a lot of integration, but I won't go down that road myself. I also still think that this library is a good idea. I might take a stab at it at some point or if the need arise in what I do. To be continued Niclas Hedhman a écrit : > 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 > >
