Hello! We now have 2 schedulers under the hood, whereas the optimal number is zero.
I would very like to see a commit where the whole ignite-schedule package is sunsetted. With prior discussion on dev list, of course. I don't see the value of having local scheduling as part of Apache Ignite at all. It's very spotty and does not integrate with the rest of features. I know that GridGain makes use of the existing scheduling code, but since they do that on a separate code base they probably won't object to removal. If you plan on improving the Schedule module, instead of removing it, I would ask you to post a roadmap of that feature on the developers list, where you describe what you are planning to implement and why. Right now it is totally not obvious why I would use the new scheduleLocal methods instead of just adding Quartz to the project and calling that. Apache Ignite is not an universal middleware like Spring, it's a database. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev чт, 29 июл. 2021 г. в 14:45, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: > 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 >
