Eight years ago, I wrote the first version of Flux's Factory class. It was the starting point for Flux users. Flux users would first make an instance of Flux's Factory class and then use it to create other objects involved in Flux programming.
Yesterday, I deleted the Factory class from the upcoming Flux 8.0 code base.
Back in 2000, using the factory design pattern was the natural choice for Flux. These days, it's become clear that Flux needs to use simple classes instead of the factory design pattern.
It felt good to simplify. 
david @ flux : June 2008
Previous NextOn a fairly regular basis, we're asked how Flux is different than one of the large, enterprise-class job schedulers like AutoSys and CONTROL-M. The short answer is: apples and oranges.
Is someone on your team doing Java development?
Answer Yes: an embeddable Java job scheduler is the lightweight solution I would use.
Answer No: a stand-alone job scheduler server like AutoSys, CONTROL-M, etc is the heavyweight solution I would use.
I've written a short technical article that addresses this topic. I hope you find it useful if you're sorting out whether you should use an embeddable, lightweight Java job scheduler like Flux or a stand-alone, heavyweight job scheduler server like CONTROL-M or AutoSys.
What's your opinion? Leave a comment or call me on skype at flux.david
David serves as the president of Flux. He wrote the first few versions of Flux before it was selling well enough that he could hire Java developers smarter than himself.