Migrate WB to use cos-common library#96
Conversation
olehavramenko
force-pushed
the
feat/add-wb
branch
from
c383041 to
88e4651
Compare
mfraezz
left a comment
mfraezz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One question meant to spark conversation about an architectural improvement, but otherwise LGTM 
| logLevel: INFO | ||
| maxTasksPerChild: 5 | ||
|
|
||
| rabbitmq: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor/informational: How much effort would it be to break this workload up, such that rabbitmq and worker had their own deployments, similar to other charts? Decoupling these could lead to improved application stability, though offhand I'm not certain that there wouldn't be unintended consequences.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mfraezz I would say it should not be much effort to scope out these workloads to the separate deployment objects but instead should be well tested and connected to each other
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you submit a separate PR for that (with appropriate chart version bump from 1.0.0 to 1.0.1, so that we can test both this and that separately), if/when you have time?
2 participants
No description provided.