You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ace.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2010/02/18 09:29:14 UTC
Using Sling's Scheduler?
Hi,
I just noticed that ACE has its own scheduler. What about using Sling's
scheduler service instead (this would reduce our code base a little
bit). The sling scheduler service is a bundle without any other
dependencies.
It uses the whiteboard pattern to schedule Runnable services either by a
cron definition or periodically - so it should be similar to what we
have in ACE.
Some basic docs are here:
http://sling.apache.org/site/scheduler-service-commons-scheduler.html
WDYT?
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Using Sling's Scheduler?
Posted by Mari <ma...@hotmail.com>.
Enviado.
El 18/02/2010, a las 21:19, Mari <ma...@hotmail.com> escribió:
> Dear Toni. I leve in Argentina, i Dont speak english, please remove
> me your Mail list. Thanks! Mari.
>
> Enviado.
>
>
> El 18/02/2010, a las 15:46, Marcel Offermans <marcel.offermans@luminis.nl
> > escribió:
>
>> The "lightweight API" from ACE's point of view could be just the
>> whiteboard pattern:
>> - register a Runnable
>> - add one or more properties that describe to the scheduler when to
>> invoke the Runnable
>>
>> I would also prefer the lightweight implementation to be inside ACE
>> for the moment, and to treat the API we decide on as an "extended"
>> compendium service (in other words, something we can share amongst
>> OSGi projects).
>>
>> Greetings, Marcel
>>
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2010, at 12:42 , Toni Menzel wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, would like to see a joint effort here as well.
>>> Just looked at the sling implementation, which is indeed quite
>>> heavyweight (1mb) but also capable (quartz included).
>>> After breaking the sling scheduler into api + quatz scheduler (at
>>> least) it should be simple to provide a third thin implementation
>>> that
>>> comes from ace and does not use quartz (and others).
>>> Biggest question is if we want to keep the lightweight impl inside
>>> ace or not.
>>> This is mostly because inside ace its much easier to change+adjust
>>> while things are in development for ace committers.
>>>
>>> Toni
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:29 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just noticed that ACE has its own scheduler. What about using
>>>>>> Sling's
>>>>>> scheduler service instead (this would reduce our code base a
>>>>>> little
>>>>>> bit). The sling scheduler service is a bundle without any other
>>>>>> dependencies.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It uses the whiteboard pattern to schedule Runnable services
>>>>>> either by a
>>>>>> cron definition or periodically - so it should be similar to
>>>>>> what we
>>>>>> have in ACE.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some basic docs are here:
>>>>>> http://sling.apache.org/site/scheduler-service-commons-scheduler.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The ACE scheduler is indeed similar to the one in Sling, so
>>>>> technically it should be quite easy to replace it, and I would
>>>>> be very much in favor of trying to merge the efforts (same goes
>>>>> for the ServiceMix scheduler, which Jean-Baptiste suggested, but
>>>>> which I did not yet look at).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have two concerns though:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) for the target, as part of our management agent, we want a
>>>>> very very lightweight scheduler, so I would like to settle on an
>>>>> API that can be implemented as lightweight as our current
>>>>> scheduler.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) we need to be able to run this lightweight scheduler on the
>>>>> minimum OSGi execution environment, because we want our
>>>>> management agent to drop in to any OSGi container (not only Java
>>>>> 5 SE ones).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So my proposal would be:
>>>>> a) try to come up with a common scheduler API
>>>>> b) implement a lightweight version for the target, with minimum EE
>>>>> c) use the Sling or ServiceMix version on the server (assuming
>>>>> that gives us additional features that actually add value)
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, I see your concerns and agree that the sling scheduler is not
>>>> the
>>>> best solution for the target then :)
>>>>
>>>> What about using the sling scheduler "api" for server and target
>>>> and we
>>>> add a lightweight implementation to Sling. We can then use the same
>>>> "api" and deploy the full version on the server and the light on
>>>> the target.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>> Carsten
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Toni Menzel
>>> Independent Software Developer
>>> Professional Profile: http://okidokiteam.com
>>> toni@okidokiteam.com
>>> http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open
>>> Participation Software.
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Using Sling's Scheduler?
Posted by Mari <ma...@hotmail.com>.
Dear Toni. I leve in Argentina, i Dont speak english, please remove me
your Mail list. Thanks! Mari.
Enviado.
El 18/02/2010, a las 15:46, Marcel Offermans <marcel.offermans@luminis.nl
> escribió:
> The "lightweight API" from ACE's point of view could be just the
> whiteboard pattern:
> - register a Runnable
> - add one or more properties that describe to the scheduler when to
> invoke the Runnable
>
> I would also prefer the lightweight implementation to be inside ACE
> for the moment, and to treat the API we decide on as an "extended"
> compendium service (in other words, something we can share amongst
> OSGi projects).
>
> Greetings, Marcel
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2010, at 12:42 , Toni Menzel wrote:
>
>> Yep, would like to see a joint effort here as well.
>> Just looked at the sling implementation, which is indeed quite
>> heavyweight (1mb) but also capable (quartz included).
>> After breaking the sling scheduler into api + quatz scheduler (at
>> least) it should be simple to provide a third thin implementation
>> that
>> comes from ace and does not use quartz (and others).
>> Biggest question is if we want to keep the lightweight impl inside
>> ace or not.
>> This is mostly because inside ace its much easier to change+adjust
>> while things are in development for ace committers.
>>
>> Toni
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org
>> > wrote:
>>> Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>>> On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:29 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just noticed that ACE has its own scheduler. What about using
>>>>> Sling's
>>>>> scheduler service instead (this would reduce our code base a
>>>>> little
>>>>> bit). The sling scheduler service is a bundle without any other
>>>>> dependencies.
>>>>
>>>>> It uses the whiteboard pattern to schedule Runnable services
>>>>> either by a
>>>>> cron definition or periodically - so it should be similar to
>>>>> what we
>>>>> have in ACE.
>>>>
>>>>> Some basic docs are here:
>>>>> http://sling.apache.org/site/scheduler-service-commons-scheduler.html
>>>>
>>>> The ACE scheduler is indeed similar to the one in Sling, so
>>>> technically it should be quite easy to replace it, and I would be
>>>> very much in favor of trying to merge the efforts (same goes for
>>>> the ServiceMix scheduler, which Jean-Baptiste suggested, but
>>>> which I did not yet look at).
>>>>
>>>> I have two concerns though:
>>>>
>>>> 1) for the target, as part of our management agent, we want a
>>>> very very lightweight scheduler, so I would like to settle on an
>>>> API that can be implemented as lightweight as our current
>>>> scheduler.
>>>>
>>>> 2) we need to be able to run this lightweight scheduler on the
>>>> minimum OSGi execution environment, because we want our
>>>> management agent to drop in to any OSGi container (not only Java
>>>> 5 SE ones).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So my proposal would be:
>>>> a) try to come up with a common scheduler API
>>>> b) implement a lightweight version for the target, with minimum EE
>>>> c) use the Sling or ServiceMix version on the server (assuming
>>>> that gives us additional features that actually add value)
>>>>
>>> Ok, I see your concerns and agree that the sling scheduler is not
>>> the
>>> best solution for the target then :)
>>>
>>> What about using the sling scheduler "api" for server and target
>>> and we
>>> add a lightweight implementation to Sling. We can then use the same
>>> "api" and deploy the full version on the server and the light on
>>> the target.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>> Carsten
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Toni Menzel
>> Independent Software Developer
>> Professional Profile: http://okidokiteam.com
>> toni@okidokiteam.com
>> http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open
>> Participation Software.
>>
>
>
Re: Using Sling's Scheduler?
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
On Feb 23, 2010, at 15:07 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> The "lightweight API" from ACE's point of view could be just the whiteboard pattern:
>> - register a Runnable
>> - add one or more properties that describe to the scheduler when to invoke the Runnable
>>
>> I would also prefer the lightweight implementation to be inside ACE for the moment, and to treat the API we decide on as an "extended" compendium service (in other words, something we can share amongst OSGi projects).
>>
> Yepp, I agree - in the end it might not be worth the effort. What about
> simply using the same properties for the whiteboard pattern then?
That makes a lot of sense. Now the maven based build is running and seems to be working, we can start working on this.
>> It uses the whiteboard pattern to schedule Runnable services either by a
>> cron definition or periodically - so it should be similar to what we
>> have in ACE.
>>
>> Some basic docs are here:
>> http://sling.apache.org/site/scheduler-service-commons-scheduler.html
One of the things we should perhaps do is to put the service in a "project neutral" package. What about using "org.apache.service" as the base package name (like the OSGi alliance uses "org.osgi.service") and then creating a subpackage per API, so here "org.apache.service.scheduler"?
Jean-Baptiste also mentioned a scheduler in ServiceMix. Maybe we can have all three use the same base API?
Greetings, Marcel
Re: Using Sling's Scheduler?
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Marcel Offermans wrote:
> The "lightweight API" from ACE's point of view could be just the whiteboard pattern:
> - register a Runnable
> - add one or more properties that describe to the scheduler when to invoke the Runnable
>
> I would also prefer the lightweight implementation to be inside ACE for the moment, and to treat the API we decide on as an "extended" compendium service (in other words, something we can share amongst OSGi projects).
>
Yepp, I agree - in the end it might not be worth the effort. What about
simply using the same properties for the whiteboard pattern then?
Regards
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Using Sling's Scheduler?
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
The "lightweight API" from ACE's point of view could be just the whiteboard pattern:
- register a Runnable
- add one or more properties that describe to the scheduler when to invoke the Runnable
I would also prefer the lightweight implementation to be inside ACE for the moment, and to treat the API we decide on as an "extended" compendium service (in other words, something we can share amongst OSGi projects).
Greetings, Marcel
On Feb 18, 2010, at 12:42 , Toni Menzel wrote:
> Yep, would like to see a joint effort here as well.
> Just looked at the sling implementation, which is indeed quite
> heavyweight (1mb) but also capable (quartz included).
> After breaking the sling scheduler into api + quatz scheduler (at
> least) it should be simple to provide a third thin implementation that
> comes from ace and does not use quartz (and others).
> Biggest question is if we want to keep the lightweight impl inside ace or not.
> This is mostly because inside ace its much easier to change+adjust
> while things are in development for ace committers.
>
> Toni
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:29 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just noticed that ACE has its own scheduler. What about using Sling's
>>>> scheduler service instead (this would reduce our code base a little
>>>> bit). The sling scheduler service is a bundle without any other
>>>> dependencies.
>>>
>>>> It uses the whiteboard pattern to schedule Runnable services either by a
>>>> cron definition or periodically - so it should be similar to what we
>>>> have in ACE.
>>>
>>>> Some basic docs are here:
>>>> http://sling.apache.org/site/scheduler-service-commons-scheduler.html
>>>
>>> The ACE scheduler is indeed similar to the one in Sling, so technically it should be quite easy to replace it, and I would be very much in favor of trying to merge the efforts (same goes for the ServiceMix scheduler, which Jean-Baptiste suggested, but which I did not yet look at).
>>>
>>> I have two concerns though:
>>>
>>> 1) for the target, as part of our management agent, we want a very very lightweight scheduler, so I would like to settle on an API that can be implemented as lightweight as our current scheduler.
>>>
>>> 2) we need to be able to run this lightweight scheduler on the minimum OSGi execution environment, because we want our management agent to drop in to any OSGi container (not only Java 5 SE ones).
>>>
>>>
>>> So my proposal would be:
>>> a) try to come up with a common scheduler API
>>> b) implement a lightweight version for the target, with minimum EE
>>> c) use the Sling or ServiceMix version on the server (assuming that gives us additional features that actually add value)
>>>
>> Ok, I see your concerns and agree that the sling scheduler is not the
>> best solution for the target then :)
>>
>> What about using the sling scheduler "api" for server and target and we
>> add a lightweight implementation to Sling. We can then use the same
>> "api" and deploy the full version on the server and the light on the target.
>>
>> WDYT?
>> Carsten
>>
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Toni Menzel
> Independent Software Developer
> Professional Profile: http://okidokiteam.com
> toni@okidokiteam.com
> http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open
> Participation Software.
>
Re: Using Sling's Scheduler?
Posted by Toni Menzel <to...@okidokiteam.com>.
Yep, would like to see a joint effort here as well.
Just looked at the sling implementation, which is indeed quite
heavyweight (1mb) but also capable (quartz included).
After breaking the sling scheduler into api + quatz scheduler (at
least) it should be simple to provide a third thin implementation that
comes from ace and does not use quartz (and others).
Biggest question is if we want to keep the lightweight impl inside ace or not.
This is mostly because inside ace its much easier to change+adjust
while things are in development for ace committers.
Toni
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:29 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>> I just noticed that ACE has its own scheduler. What about using Sling's
>>> scheduler service instead (this would reduce our code base a little
>>> bit). The sling scheduler service is a bundle without any other
>>> dependencies.
>>
>>> It uses the whiteboard pattern to schedule Runnable services either by a
>>> cron definition or periodically - so it should be similar to what we
>>> have in ACE.
>>
>>> Some basic docs are here:
>>> http://sling.apache.org/site/scheduler-service-commons-scheduler.html
>>
>> The ACE scheduler is indeed similar to the one in Sling, so technically it should be quite easy to replace it, and I would be very much in favor of trying to merge the efforts (same goes for the ServiceMix scheduler, which Jean-Baptiste suggested, but which I did not yet look at).
>>
>> I have two concerns though:
>>
>> 1) for the target, as part of our management agent, we want a very very lightweight scheduler, so I would like to settle on an API that can be implemented as lightweight as our current scheduler.
>>
>> 2) we need to be able to run this lightweight scheduler on the minimum OSGi execution environment, because we want our management agent to drop in to any OSGi container (not only Java 5 SE ones).
>>
>>
>> So my proposal would be:
>> a) try to come up with a common scheduler API
>> b) implement a lightweight version for the target, with minimum EE
>> c) use the Sling or ServiceMix version on the server (assuming that gives us additional features that actually add value)
>>
> Ok, I see your concerns and agree that the sling scheduler is not the
> best solution for the target then :)
>
> What about using the sling scheduler "api" for server and target and we
> add a lightweight implementation to Sling. We can then use the same
> "api" and deploy the full version on the server and the light on the target.
>
> WDYT?
> Carsten
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
--
Toni Menzel
Independent Software Developer
Professional Profile: http://okidokiteam.com
toni@okidokiteam.com
http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open
Participation Software.
Re: Using Sling's Scheduler?
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:29 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> I just noticed that ACE has its own scheduler. What about using Sling's
>> scheduler service instead (this would reduce our code base a little
>> bit). The sling scheduler service is a bundle without any other
>> dependencies.
>
>> It uses the whiteboard pattern to schedule Runnable services either by a
>> cron definition or periodically - so it should be similar to what we
>> have in ACE.
>
>> Some basic docs are here:
>> http://sling.apache.org/site/scheduler-service-commons-scheduler.html
>
> The ACE scheduler is indeed similar to the one in Sling, so technically it should be quite easy to replace it, and I would be very much in favor of trying to merge the efforts (same goes for the ServiceMix scheduler, which Jean-Baptiste suggested, but which I did not yet look at).
>
> I have two concerns though:
>
> 1) for the target, as part of our management agent, we want a very very lightweight scheduler, so I would like to settle on an API that can be implemented as lightweight as our current scheduler.
>
> 2) we need to be able to run this lightweight scheduler on the minimum OSGi execution environment, because we want our management agent to drop in to any OSGi container (not only Java 5 SE ones).
>
>
> So my proposal would be:
> a) try to come up with a common scheduler API
> b) implement a lightweight version for the target, with minimum EE
> c) use the Sling or ServiceMix version on the server (assuming that gives us additional features that actually add value)
>
Ok, I see your concerns and agree that the sling scheduler is not the
best solution for the target then :)
What about using the sling scheduler "api" for server and target and we
add a lightweight implementation to Sling. We can then use the same
"api" and deploy the full version on the server and the light on the target.
WDYT?
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Using Sling's Scheduler?
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:29 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> I just noticed that ACE has its own scheduler. What about using Sling's
> scheduler service instead (this would reduce our code base a little
> bit). The sling scheduler service is a bundle without any other
> dependencies.
> It uses the whiteboard pattern to schedule Runnable services either by a
> cron definition or periodically - so it should be similar to what we
> have in ACE.
> Some basic docs are here:
> http://sling.apache.org/site/scheduler-service-commons-scheduler.html
The ACE scheduler is indeed similar to the one in Sling, so technically it should be quite easy to replace it, and I would be very much in favor of trying to merge the efforts (same goes for the ServiceMix scheduler, which Jean-Baptiste suggested, but which I did not yet look at).
I have two concerns though:
1) for the target, as part of our management agent, we want a very very lightweight scheduler, so I would like to settle on an API that can be implemented as lightweight as our current scheduler.
2) we need to be able to run this lightweight scheduler on the minimum OSGi execution environment, because we want our management agent to drop in to any OSGi container (not only Java 5 SE ones).
>
So my proposal would be:
a) try to come up with a common scheduler API
b) implement a lightweight version for the target, with minimum EE
c) use the Sling or ServiceMix version on the server (assuming that gives us additional features that actually add value)
Greetings, Marcel
Re: Using Sling's Scheduler?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi,
why not using Sling.
We can use Quartz bundle provided by ServiceMix too.
Regards
JB
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that ACE has its own scheduler. What about using Sling's
> scheduler service instead (this would reduce our code base a little
> bit). The sling scheduler service is a bundle without any other
> dependencies.
>
> It uses the whiteboard pattern to schedule Runnable services either by a
> cron definition or periodically - so it should be similar to what we
> have in ACE.
>
> Some basic docs are here:
> http://sling.apache.org/site/scheduler-service-commons-scheduler.html
>
> WDYT?
>
> Carsten