On Wednesday 16 December 2015 08:08:59 Markus Holtermann wrote: > From my point of view the major non-functional difference is the > interaction with a client in *some way*. While a celery task runs without > any form of client, a channels method would mostly do that. Picture the > following example: > > A user uploads an image. This could happen through the common > request-response cycle. When the upload is done the server creates a > celery task to generate a bunch of thumbnails and returns a http response.
But here is Ben's point: Why would you introduce an additional moving part here (Celery), when the Channels documentation specifically mentions this as a use-case? If I get it right -- Curtis' description is spot-on; some tasks will still need Celery, Channels will take care of many others. Shai.
