ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Requested -- IGNITE-15077
Date Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:45:02 GMT
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 <atri@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Ilya,
>
> Following up on this please.
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 22:20 Atri Sharma, <atri@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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message