Start a Django Channels Worker within the same process
I found an answer to my question.
The answer is no, you can't just start a worker within the same process. This is because the consumer needs to run inside an event loop thread and it is not good at all to have more than one event loop thread in the same process (Django WSGI application already runs the main thread with an event loop).
The best you can do is to start the worker in a separate process. As I mentioned in my question, I started a message broker consumer on a separate thread, which was not a good approach either, so I changed my configuration to start the consumers as separate processes.
I have to set up a worker which handles some data after a certain event happens. I know I can start the worker with python manage.py runworker my_worker, but what I would need is to start the worker in the same process as the main Django app on a separate thread.
Why do I need it in a separate thread and not in a separate process? Because the worker would perform a pretty light-weight job which would not overload the server's resources, and, moreover, the effort of making the set up for a new process in the production is not worth the gain in performance. In other words, I would prefer to keep it in the Django's process if possible.
Why not perform the job synchronously? Because it is a separate logic that needs the possibility to be extended, and it is out of the main HTTP request-reply scope. It is a post-processing task which doesn't interfere with the main logic. I need to decouple this task from an infrastructural point-of-view, not only logical (e.g. with plain signals).
Is there any possibility provided by Django Channels to run a worker in such a way?
Would there be any downsides to start the worker manually on a separate thread?
Right now I have the setup for a message broker consumer thread (without using Channels), so I have the entry point for starting a new worker thread. But as I've seen from the Channel's runworker command, it loads the whole application, so it doesn't seem like a naïve worker.run() call is the proper way to do it (I might be wrong with this one).