4 ms·
Anything involving asynchronous operations has historically been painful with Django. I know that new versions are improving on this, but I think for now it's l
by anp 10y ago
Anything involving asynchronous operations has historically been painful with Django. I know that new versions are improving on this, but I think for now it's limited to web sockets.
- dom0 10y agoThat has little do with Django; you'll find it's the same with any WSGI based framework, because WSGI is fundamentally a synchronous interface.
- falcolas 10y agoTrue, but it's still worth calling out since Django is a WSGI-based framework.
- pmontra 10y agoHow about using Celery and sending tasks to it? A customer of mine has a Django application which is little more that a web interface over a bunch of long running Celery tasks and it works pretty well. No status updates over websockets, but it could be added pretty easily.
- dikaiosune 10y agoEarlier this year I worked on a project which did exactly this. I find it much more difficult to get insight into the system with Celery & RabbitMQ than with other tools. I also found Celery's documentation to not be super awesome for my uses, and it took a lot of trial and error to get it running. YMMV of course.
- hobarrera 10y agoCelery is indeed great, but the doc falls far behind django's. The "celery+django" doc is actually outdated in a couple of places, and getting it setup isn't such a breeze. I regret not having documented what I did at the time to actually push an update to this. :(
- reachtarunhere 10y agoAlso look into django-channels