🏗️ Architecture: Should interactive channel messages (WhatsApp/Slack) use Bul...

Date: 2026-02-20
Time: 15:38:18 UTC
Session: gspace1-128.4
Agent: orchestrator
Confidence: 90%
Status: ✅ Documented

📋 Decision Context

Question:

Should interactive channel messages (WhatsApp/Slack) use BullMQ or direct processing?

Task: Not specified

🎯 Decision Made

Chosen:

Direct processing for interactive, BullMQ for background tasks

Options Considered:

1. BullMQ for all tasks (persistent but BullMQ Worker had silent connection issues)
2. Direct processing for interactive, BullMQ for background tasks

💭 Reasoning

Channel messages need immediate response — users are waiting in real-time. BullMQ adds latency and its Worker had a silent connection issue on Railway where jobs were enqueued but never consumed. Interactive tasks (type=channel-message or context.replyTo present) now bypass BullMQ and call processTaskWorkflow directly. Background tasks (scheduled, workflows) still use BullMQ for persistence and retry.

📁 Files Involved

• No files specified

🔗 Related

• Decision ID: dev_1771601898952_10bdkl9
• Session: 128
• Workspace: gspace1

Auto-generated by MCP Smart Consolidation