https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=35092
--- Comment #9 from Blou <[email protected]> --- I would favor option 4, and option 2 as a lesser evil scenario. We use the database everywhere, we keep trace of everything in it, including deleted objects, and can use it to retrace everything that happened to a library when they ask. And then we use an outside tool for messaging to a background worker coded by/for Koha, for tasks where a nanosecond reaction time is absolutely not necessary. MQ (and Erlang) is surprisingly demanding on ressources for the little it offers. The last two releases, I've hacked the background_jobs tool to make sure the database was always used, and checked at startup, so that no task was lost. You sure can invest a lot of efforts to correct MQ, but why? What is the long term objective for this? Because background tasks are sure not enough to justify the added complexity. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
