Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor scheduling logic #100

Open
smallketchup82 opened this issue Aug 9, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Refactor scheduling logic #100

smallketchup82 opened this issue Aug 9, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
status:needs discussion Needs more discussion before making any calls type:enhancement New feature

Comments

@smallketchup82
Copy link
Member

@smallketchup82
Copy link
Member Author

@CornHusker89 do you think this is still needed, or are we fine?

to make it more clear as to what i want to accomplish here, i was thinking it'd be better to abstract all of the logic out into "jobs" with quartz. so that, for example, if the user decides to do a single mass ship update, it gets run in a job and scheduled for the closest minute. in the same example, if a user decides to do scheduled mass ship updates, we can reuse the same job but for every ship.

this removes code duplication & makes full use of quartz. but it comes with the added issue of users probably having to wait a bit for it to run, and also probably adds a bit of complexity.

do you think we should just leave it as is, or should we migrate everything out into jobs?

@smallketchup82 smallketchup82 removed this from the C# Rewrite Roundup milestone Sep 14, 2024
@CornHusker89
Copy link
Contributor

if we can make it run in the next 5 seconds or something then sure but otherwise it would be a bit of a pain. But then again, 1 minute isn't that bad, so low key it doesn't really matter

@smallketchup82
Copy link
Member Author

i'll write up a test implementation.

i don't know what to make of the added complexity but keeping things monolithic feels good. just a gut feeling. so i'll try to push this forwards.

@smallketchup82
Copy link
Member Author

@CornHusker89 ok actually, im a little hesitant to work on this. if #56 ends up happening, the effort spent here would effectively be wasted

i think ill leave this stale

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status:needs discussion Needs more discussion before making any calls type:enhancement New feature
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants