-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 85
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Check if command can be used directly. #813
Comments
That might be an option, but might not lead to expected results either. I have no clue in what context you want to process the queue, but I'd rather refactor that code to not expect that the queue is processed at all, but allows for async processing of the queue (which most of the time is the whole point of a queue anyway) |
Thanks for your input @helhum. There are 3 options to process the Queue in the Crawler
The "problem" that I'm trying to solve here is the "Add Process" button from the backend. |
Do all do exactly the same? I'm asking because "add process" sounds different to "process queue" I will now comment under the assumption that alle three do the same. I would suggest to only implement a command and document the following options:
From what I have written above, what is missing to solve your problem? If it is to have a button in a different place (UI) that does what I have suggested as 3., the I would suggest to apply the following:
Here are the benefits when doing so:
|
Thanks again for your input, which is all valid. They are all 3 doing the same job: Processing entries in the Queue. The reason for the "add process" from the backend, is in case that something needs to happen faster. Which allows multiple processes to run at the same time, but at the same time with a limit of let's say 4 processes at ones. This is the reason for the differentiation right now. I haven't looked into your idea yet, of triggering it over the scheduler, so I don't know yet if I can add a limit for that as well. I really value your input for this, as this will help improve the decision that I make regarding the refactoring. |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
Since we are on TYPO3 v12. I think I would see if I could come up with a setup that enables the Message Bus [1] instead of the Crawler Queue. This will remove some logic from the TYPO3 Crawler, and ease the maintenance. [1] https://docs.typo3.org/m/typo3/reference-coreapi/main/en-us/ApiOverview/MessageBus/Index.html |
from https://twitter.com/teh_plague/status/1449804058550804493
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: