On 12/06/2013 07:07 AM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> Review: Approve
>
> Looks good. Out of curiosity, did you have a quick look at Celery?
I had done this MP before talking to William.
> I ask because William had that comment in the standup about using Celery as a starting point and moving onto python-amqplib for the tasks that don't fit the Celery model.
>
> I haven't used it myself, so if you're confident that python-amqplib does the job simply, please proceed :)
I've used Celery before, but TBH I hit problems where it couldn't seem
to route things properly. My reasons for leaning towards amqplib would be:
1) one less dependency to pull in (not a good enough reason though)
2) we have some code from daisy that fits our usage model
So my gut is telling me to do amqplib for now, but I don't really have
any hard supporting data to back it up.
On 12/06/2013 07:07 AM, Evan Dandrea wrote:
> Review: Approve
>
> Looks good. Out of curiosity, did you have a quick look at Celery?
I had done this MP before talking to William.
> I ask because William had that comment in the standup about using Celery as a starting point and moving onto python-amqplib for the tasks that don't fit the Celery model.
>
> I haven't used it myself, so if you're confident that python-amqplib does the job simply, please proceed :)
I've used Celery before, but TBH I hit problems where it couldn't seem
to route things properly. My reasons for leaning towards amqplib would be:
1) one less dependency to pull in (not a good enough reason though)
2) we have some code from daisy that fits our usage model
So my gut is telling me to do amqplib for now, but I don't really have
any hard supporting data to back it up.