Atri. I think Ilya means IgniteCombinedSchedulerProcessor that delegates calls to 2 different Scheduler implementations. And the logic may not be enough clear for a user.
1. You added a new mandatory dependency on Quartz. We are trying to avoid this as much as possible, because this may lead to the jar-hell issue on the user-side. E.g in case the user uses the same library of the other version for other purposes. Is it possible to move scheduler implementation based on Quartz to a separate module and make the module optional? Or maybe move it to Ignite extensions? 2. Does it make sense to split Combined scheduler into 2 separate implementations? It looks ok if they will have slightly different capabilities on API if all the limitations will be well-documented. I mean Javadoc in implementation class must provide this information, along with the common interface methods describe possible errors in a "@throw" section in javadoc. On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 1:15 PM Atri Sharma <a...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Ilya, > > Following up on this please. > > On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 22:20 Atri Sharma, <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > > Frankly speaking, I do not see the value of having an extra layer of > > > indirection around *local* Quartz-based scheduler in Ignite. Can you > > > elaborate? > > > > I didnt quite understand that. Are you referring to the > > IgniteCombinedSchedulerProcessor? > > > > > > Our guidelines also recommend having issue description to document the > > whys > > > and hows, and not just issue title. > > > > Sure, I will update the issue with more details. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Atri > > Apache Concerted > > > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov
