Synchronous Mode

[f2prateek]

I think both #34 and #51 are symptoms of the same underlying issue - that our threading does not play nicely with Celery and Google App Engine.

As @calvinfo mentioned in #51 (comment); the right solution would be to allow users to control/skip the async nature of this library and use it as a dumb HTTP API wrapper when needed.

[f2prateek]

Two potential paths we can take here:

1. Make it easier to user the internal models and underly HTTP API wrappers publicly.
2. Add some option to the client so it operates in synchronous mode.

[russlevy]

Synchornous mode would be great for me as well.

[samcheng]

Russell, I have a modification that has been working for me (synchronously). Let put put it up on github (one of these days when I have time) to share.

…

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Russell Levy ***@***.***> wrote: Synchornous mode would be great for me as well. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#101 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADw4XRN49_TKwH27VNZvo9-AytZiENQmks5tf_oKgaJpZM4QoIey> .

[savraj]

the solution for google app engine (for me at least) is to use the built in task queue and just use the http api with urlfetch

[poswald]

That pull looks good but Is there going to be a way to configure/explicitly specify a SyncConsumer even if you're not in AWS Lambda or Google App Engine?

[samcheng]

#105 works for me. It bypasses the Consumer class entirely. I've been using it for backfills, which appear to exacerbate the Celery issue. We're on Heroku instead of GAE, for what it's worth.

[gojefferson]

Synchronous mode would be a great feature. I'm having problems using analytics with django-rq, and I think the problem would be solved if I could make synchronous calls when I want to.