Cron Provider?

Stephen C. Tweedie sct at redhat.com
Thu Mar 7 13:27:00 UTC 2013


Hi,

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 07:37 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed 06 Mar 2013 06:59:44 PM EST, Russell Doty wrote:
> > Do we need to consider a cron Provider?
> > 
> 
> Consider? Yes. Actually do it right now? No, not at all.
> 
> The issue is that cron's future is uncertain. It will remain in use in
> the real world for many years at the least (and most likely we'll
> retain legacy support for it in the future) but there is a new player
> in this field. systemd recently added the ability to manage scheduled
> events, and it does so with a language that is much closer to that of
> a calendaring program's scheduling than it is to cron. So my major
> concern here is that there may not be a way to model the scheduling
> provider (let's call it that, rather than cron provider) in such a way
> that it can account for both formats.
> 
> So yes, we *could* build a scheduling provider, but I think we want to
> think very hard about what level of scheduling we want to support.
> systemd's scheduler is a very large superset of what cron is capable
> of, so I suppose we could build that first and then extend it later to
> support the advanced systemd features.

Starting with cron would also have the advantage of building the most
portable code first; it would make sense to add the more
version-specific options later.

--Stephen




More information about the openlmi-devel mailing list