Job Scheduler and 5.00

cnicola

Hi guys,

I bet this is in one of the manuals or "What's new" docs but this should be faster :oops:
I just found out that apparently the Job Scheduler granule has been discontinued in 5.00 (i.e. cannot be bought anymore for clients with a 5.00 license) :? But obviously it does not say what you are supposed to replace it with. Anyone know what is the new thing to use for scheduling jobs? (short of doing one myself or porting the code to 50000 range since my objects are 3.60 anyway).

Thanks.

ara3n

It is called Job queue. It runs with NAS.

Alex_Chow

cnicola wrote:

Hi guys,

I bet this is in one of the manuals or "What's new" docs but this should be faster :oops:
I just found out that apparently the Job Scheduler granule has been discontinued in 5.00 (i.e. cannot be bought anymore for clients with a 5.00 license) :? But obviously it does not say what you are supposed to replace it with. Anyone know what is the new thing to use for scheduling jobs? (short of doing one myself or porting the code to 50000 range since my objects are 3.60 anyway).

Thanks.

It's also included in the BRL model. So if you're client is purchasing NAV, it'll be included.

richtsang

I got the same question as well. I asked Microsoft. The guy told me Job scheduler will be replaced by Job Queue at NAV5.0. Then, if the licence has included the Job Scheduler, the upgraded licence will be entitled to use the Job Queue. This is what I heard from Microsoft staff.

David_Singleton

Will they remove the license to the old objects from the FLF? If not then why not just continue using what you have.

jlandeen

Has anyone here tried this with an older version of the objects only?

I'm working on a project that has just upgraded the client to 5.0 but isn't ready to upgrade all of their objects from 4.0 (HUGE numbe of modifications).

David_Singleton

jlandeen wrote:

Has anyone here tried this with an older version of the objects only?

I'm working on a project that has just upgraded the client to 5.0 but isn't ready to upgrade all of their objects from 4.0 (HUGE numbe of modifications).

Its not a 5.00 issue its a license issue. But its very rare that Navision remove granules (aka object permisions) from the flf file, since it makes the upgrade process very complex.

But it has happened.

Alex_Chow

David Singleton wrote:

jlandeen wrote:

Has anyone here tried this with an older version of the objects only?

I'm working on a project that has just upgraded the client to 5.0 but isn't ready to upgrade all of their objects from 4.0 (HUGE numbe of modifications).

Its not a 5.00 issue its a license issue. But its very rare that Navision remove granules (aka object permisions) from the flf file, since it makes the upgrade process very complex.

But it has happened.

Really? I haven't had this happen before. We still have a couple of clients on 2.0 but using a 5.0 license.

cnicola

OK the idea is that job Scheduler is for versions lower than 5.00 and uses the objects in 5000 range. Job queue is for 5.00 and up and uses some objects in 400 range.
The confusion in our case was that while we had a 5.00 license we were using 3.60 objects. Apparently though all we had to do is order Job Scheduler and it would be fine. Well so does our admin say. I will not believe it until I see the license

David_Singleton

cnicola wrote:

OK the idea is that job Scheduler is for versions lower than 5.00 and uses the objects in 5000 range. Job queue is for 5.00 and up and uses some objects in 400 range.
The confusion in our case was that while we had a 5.00 license we were using 3.60 objects. Apparently though all we had to do is order Job Scheduler and it would be fine. Well so does our admin say. I will not believe it until I see the license

Hey Cristi, I think this is a different scenario.

The one we are discussing, is where and EXISTING (say) 3.6 license is upgraded to a 5.00, then almost always that 5.0 license grandfathers in any granules exiting in the old 3.60 license.

But if the granule is no longer supported, then I doubt you will be able to order it.

Alex, yes it has happened. Using the same logic, I can say that I have never been hit by lightning, but that doesn't mean that someone else wasn't My problem is that I stand under too many trees in thunder storms.