Quartz Scheduler Example 2 comparison

gistfile1.java

//Quartz scheduler Example 2 from 1.8.3

        // job3 will run 11 times (run once and repeat 10 more times)
        // job3 will repeat every 10 seconds (10000 ms)
        job = new JobDetail("job3", "group1", SimpleJob.class);
        trigger = new SimpleTrigger("trigger3", "group1", "job3", "group1",
                new Date(ts), null, 10, 10000L);
        ft = sched.scheduleJob(job, trigger);
        
        // the same job (job3) will be scheduled by a another trigger
        // this time will only run every 70 seocnds (70000 ms)
        trigger = new SimpleTrigger("trigger3", "group2", "job3", "group1",
                new Date(ts), null, 2, 70000L);
      
        ft = sched.scheduleJob(job, trigger);


//Quartz scheduler Example 2 from 2.0

        // job3 will run 11 times (run once and repeat 10 more times)
        // job3 will repeat every 10 seconds
        job = newJob(SimpleJob.class)
            .withIdentity("job3", "group1")
            .build();

         trigger = newTrigger()
            .withIdentity("trigger3", "group1")
            .startAt(startTime)
            .withSchedule(simpleSchedule()
                    .withIntervalInSeconds(10)
                    .withRepeatCount(10))
            .build();

        ft = sched.scheduleJob(job, trigger);
        
        // the same job (job3) will be scheduled by a another trigger
        // this time will only repeat twice at a 70 second interval

        trigger = newTrigger()
            .withIdentity("trigger3", "group2")
            .startAt(startTime)
            .withSchedule(simpleSchedule()
                    .withIntervalInSeconds(10)
                    .withRepeatCount(2))
            .forJob(job)
            .build();

        ft = sched.scheduleJob(trigger);
       

This comparison highlights the problem of figuring out what the parameters are to a constructor vs. reading a Fluent interface.