This question already has an answer here:
Does Akka onReceive method execute concurrently?
(1 answer)
Closed 1 year ago.
I read Akka documentation, but I do not understand:
class MyActor extends Actor {
private var _state = 0
override def receive: Receive = {
case x: Int =>
if (x != _state) {
println(s"---------> fail: ${x} and ${_state}")
}
_state = x + 1
}
}
implicit val system = ActorSystem("my-system")
val ref = system.actorOf(Props[MyActor], "my-actor")
(0 to 10000).foreach { x =>
ref ! x
}
I have a _state variable which is not #volatile and not atomic but at the same time _state is always correct, if I do changes with !-method.
How does Akka protect and update the internal state of actors?
Akka is an implementation of the Actor Model of computation. One of the (arguably the) key guarantees made by the actor model is that an actor only ever processes a single message at a time. Simply by virtue of having _state be private to an actor, you get a concurrency guarantee that's at least as strong as if you had every method of an object be #synchronized, with the added bonus of the ! operation to send a message being non-blocking.
Under the hood, a rough (simplified in a few places, but the broad strokes are accurate) outline of how it works and how the guarantee is enforced is:
Using the Props the ActorSystem constructs an instance of MyActor, places the only JVM reference to that instance inside an ActorCell (I'm told this terminology, as well as that the deep internals of Akka are "the dungeon", is inspired by the early development team for Akka being based in an office in what was previously a jail in Uppsala, Sweden), and keys that ActorCell with my-actor. In the meantime (technically this happens after system.actorOf has already returned the ActorRef), it constructs an ActorRef to allow user code to refer to the actor.
Inside the ActorCell, the receive method is called and the resulting PartialFunction[Any, Unit] (which has a type synonym of Receive) is saved in a field of the ActorCell which corresponds to the actor's behavior.
The ! operation on the ActorRef (at least for a local ActorRef) resolves which dispatcher is responsible for the actor and hands the message to the dispatcher. The dispatcher then enqueues the message into the mailbox of the ActorCell corresponding to my-actor (this is done in a thread-safe way).
If there is no task currently scheduled to process messages from the actor's mailbox, such a task is enqueued to the dispatcher's execution context to dequeue some (configurable) number of messages from the ActorCell's mailbox and process them, one-at-a-time, in a loop. After that loop, if there are more messages to process, another such task will be enqueued. Processing a message consists of passing it to the Receive stored in the ActorCell's behavior field (this mechanism allows the context.become pattern for changing behavior).
It's the last bit that provides the core of the guarantee that only one thread is ever invoking the Receive logic.
This is the Classic model for Akka Actors. If you are just learning actors then you should use Typed Actors because that is the supported model going forwards.
With typed actors, the actor system holds the state for each actor, not the actor itself. When an actor needs to process a message the actor system will pass the current state to the actor. The actor will return the new state back to the actor system when it has finished processing the message.
The typed model avoids all synchronisation issues because it does not use any external state, it only uses the state that is passed to it. And it does not modify any external state, it just returns a modified state value.
If you must use Classic actors then you can implement the same model using context.become rather than a var.
Related
I am pretty new in Scala Akka . Say I am spawning a Configuration child actor,
object Configuration {
def apply(): Behavior[ConfigurationMessage] = Behaviors.setup(context => new Configuration(context))
}
Now I need same context ActorContext[ConfigurationMessage] in my HTTP router to do some operation.
How can I create the same ActorContext there
The ActorContext cannot be used outside of the actor it's associated with, including in an HTTP router. Any ActorContext which leaks out of an actor (e.g. by sending it as a message) will, by design, throw an exception and not do anything for most operations if it's used outside of its actor.
The only operations on the ActorContext which could possibly be used outside of the associated actor are:
context.ask and friends can be just as easily replaced with a Future-returning ask on the target RecipientRef with the message send occurring in a foreach callback on the future.
context.executionContext: can just as easily use system.executionContext (which will typically be the same) or by looking up via dispatchers
context.pipeToSelf is probably best done as a send in a foreach callback on the future
context.scheduleOnce is better done using the system scheduler directly
context.self is kind of pointless, as you'd have to have the ActorRef already in order to leak the ActorContext
context.system is likewise pointless, as you already have the system
So i'm using Akka Typed, and want to spawn actor for each message into some stream, according documentation it seems not possible:
Warning: This method is not thread-safe and must not be accessed from threads otherthan the ordinary actor message processing thread, such as [[scala.concurrent.Future]] callbacks.
def spawn[U](behavior: Behavior[U], name: String, props: Props = Props.empty): ActorRef[U]
Example:
Behaviors.receiveMessage {
case StartConsume =>
context.log.info("Starting consume messages")
val source: Source[Int, NotUsed] = Source(1 to 10)
source.runForeach(x => context.spawn(Test(x), "Test"))
Behaviors.same
}
Are there some other ways to do this?
Since the stream will materialize into a different actor, it's virtually certain that you can't close over an ActorContext in the stream (if it happens to execute in the same thread as the enclosing actor last ran on, it won't blow up), e.g for spawning a child.
As alternatives:
If you don't particularly care that the spawned actors be children of this actor (e.g. in classic, you'd be using system.actorOf), you could have the guardian actor (the one with the behavior from spawning the ActorSystem) spawn the actors: you can either roll your own protocol to do such spawning or have that guardian implement SpawnProtocol. You can then send the appropriate message to context.system, but note that you'll need to user context.system.unsafeUpcast to the protocol you're using. Since you should have control over the guardian's protocol, that's unlikely to fail, but the compiler won't really help you.
If you do want the spawned actors to be children, and you also want the spawns to be asynchronous, the best way to accomplish this is probably through an internal message that results in just spawning the actor. Then in the stream you just send those messages to yourself.
If you don't want the spawns to be asynchronous (which it should be noted, the approach of spawning them in a stream is), then just call spawn in the message processing thread without being in a stream.
The data layer in my web application is comprised of Akka actors. Whenever I need to access data, I invoke the ActorSystem mechanism like so:
val myActor = system.actorOf(Props[MyActor], name = "myactor")
implicit val timeout = Timeout(120 seconds)
val future = myActor ? Request1
val result = Await.result(future, timeout.duration)
I'm using Play, and the ActorSystem variable is obtained through injection:
class MyClass #Inject() (system: ActorSystem)
But I'm getting the following exception saying that the actor name is not unique the second time I access the function, how to fix this? How to name the actor, taking into account that can be used concurrently by more than one thread?
play.api.http.HttpErrorHandlerExceptions$$anon$1: Execution
exception[[InvalidActorNameException: actor name [myactor] is not
unique!]]
** EDIT **
What I'm trying to achieve is something similar to having a container of Entity Beans in the EJB model, where each actor would be an Entity Bean. The difference I'm noticing is that the actors are not created/destroyed automatically as needed.
Depending on your goal, the question may be not how to name an actor, but when to create it. You are creating a new actor every time you need to access some data. I suppose you aren't stopping old actors when they are no longer needed.
You should probably create an actor once (or multiple times if you want a pool of actors, but using different names) and reuse it later by keeping an ActorRef somewhere or using dependency injected actors. You can also use system.actorFor or system.actorSelection (depending on Akka version you're using) if you really need to.
Most of the time you don't even need an explicit ActorRef because you want to reply to a sender of some message.
If you have to create a separate actor each time, then see Wonpyo's answer. In my opinion, though, you could simply use a Future directly instead.
There is a great guide on Actors in the Akka documentation.
Edit:
Since you specified you want each actor to act like a DAO class, I think it should look something like:
// Somewhere in some singleton object (injected as dependency)
val personDao : ActorRef = system.actorOf(Props[PersonDaoActor], name = "personDao")
val fruitDao : ActorRef = system.actorOf(Props[FruitDaoActor], name = "fruitDao")
Then, when you need to access some data:
val johnSmithFuture = personDao ? Get("John Smith")
johnSmithFuture.map {
case Person(name, age) => println(s"${name} ${age}")
}
Alternatively, instead of personDao you can use system.actorFor("personDao") (or system.actorSelection equivalent in Akka 2.4). You can also inject actors directly.
If you want multiple actors to process your messages in parallel you can use routers. Example:
val personDao: ActorRef =
system.actorOf(RoundRobinPool(5).props(Props[PersonDaoActor]), "personDao")
It would create 5 instances of your PersonDaoActor and distribute any messages sent to personDao among those 5 actors, so you could process 5 queries in parallel. If all 5 actors are busy, messages will be queued.
Using Await defeats the purpose of Akka in this case. There are some cases when this is the only option (legacy code, mostly), but using it every time effectively makes your code completely blocking, maybe even single-threaded (depending on your actor code). This is especially true in Play, which is designed to do everything asynchronously, so there's no need to Await.
It may be a good idea to reconsider if actors are really the best solution to your problem. If all you want is parallel execution, then Futures are much simpler. Some people still use actors in such case because they like the abstraction and the simplicity of routing. I found an interesting article describing this in detail: "Don't use Actors for concurrency" (also read the comments for opposing views).
Actor System requires unique name (path) for each actor.
Path has follwing format akka://system#host:port/user/{your-actor-path}
For example
val system = ActorSystem("hello")
val myActor = system.actorOf(Props[MyActor], name ="myactor")
// myActor Path
// "akka://hello/user/myactor" // purely local
// "akka.tcp://hello#ip:port/user/myactor" // remote
and in your code, myActor is created everytime, you make a call.
which makes an actor in the same path everytime.
Thus, Bad solution is to change the code as following
val myActor = system.actorOf(Props[MyActor])
If you don't assign a name to an actor then actor system will assign an random name
and myActor will not have same path for each function call.
But, this is really bad solution, since myActor will not be destructed
(Actor is not terminated by GC)
If you keep calling the function, then your memory will be out of space one day.
So, please DESTRUCT myActor after you done with the function.
I'm working on implementing a small language to send tasks to execution and control execution flow. After the sending a task to my system, the user gets a future (on which it can call a blocking get() or flatMap() ). My question is: is it OK to send futures in Akka messages?
Example: actor A sends a message Response to actor B and Response contains a future among its fields. Then at some point A will fulfill the promise from which the future was created. After receiving the Response, B can call flatMap() or get() at any time.
I'm asking because Akka messages should be immutable and work even if actors are on different JVMs. I don't see how my example above can work if actors A and B are on different JVMs. Also, are there any problems with my example even if actors are on same JVM?
Something similar is done in the accepted answer in this stackoverflow question. Will this work if actors are on different JVMs?
Without remoting it's possible, but still not advisable. With remoting in play it won't work at all.
If your goal is to have an API that returns Futures, but uses actors as the plumbing underneath, one approach could be that the API creates its own actor internally that it asks, and then returns the future from that ask to the caller. The actor spawned by the API call is guaranteed to be local to the API instance and can communicate with the rest of the actor system via the regular tell/receive mechanism, so that there are no Futures sent as messages.
class MyTaskAPI(actorFactory: ActorRefFactory) {
def doSomething(...): Future[SomethingResult] = {
val taskActor = actorFactory.actorOf(Props[MyTaskActor])
taskActor ? DoSomething(...).mapTo[SomethingResult]
}
}
where MyTaskActor receives the DoSomething, captures the sender, sends out the request for task processince and likely becomes a receiving state for SomethingResult which finally responds to the captured sender and stops itself. This approach creates two actors per request, one explicitly, the MyTaskActor and one implicitly, the handler of the ask, but keeps all state inside of actors.
Alternately, you could use the ActorDSL to create just one actor inline of doSomething and use a captured Promise for completion instead of using ask:
class MyTaskAPI(system: System) {
def doSomething(...): Future[SomethingResult] = {
val p = Promise[SomethingResult]()
val tmpActor = actor(new Act {
become {
case msg:SomethingResult =>
p.success(msg)
self.stop()
}
}
system.actorSelection("user/TaskHandler").tell(DoSomething(...), tmpActor)
p.future
}
}
This approach is a bit off the top of my head and it does use a shared value between the API and the temp actor, which some might consider a smell, but should give an idea how to implement your workflow.
If you're asking if it's possible, then yes, it's possible. Remote actors are basically interprocess communication. If you set everything up on both machines to a state where both can properly handle the future, then it should be good. You don't give any working example so I can't really delve deeper into it.
I'm creating an actor system, which has a list of actors representing some kind of session state.
These session are created by a factory actor (which might, in the future, get replaced by a router, if performance requires that - this should be transparent to the rest of the system, however).
Now I want to implement an operation where I get some state information from each of my currently existing session actors.
I have no explicit session list, as I want to rely on the actor system "owning" the sessions. I tried to use the actor system to look up the current session actors. The problem is that I did not find a "get all actor refs with this naming pattern" method. I tried to use the "/" operator on the system, followed by resolveOne - but got lost in a maze of future types.
The basic idea I had was:
- Send a message to all current session actors (as given to my by my ActorSystem).
- Wait for a response from them (preferably by using just the "ask" pattern - the method calling this broadcaster request/response is just a monitoring resp. debugging method, so blocking is no probleme here.
- And then collect the responses into a result.
After a death match against Scala's type system I had to give up for now.
Is there really no way of doing something like this?
If I understand the question correctly, then I can offer up a couple of ways you can accomplish this (though there are certainly others).
Option 1
In this approach, there will be an actor that is responsible for waking up periodically and sending a request to all session actors to get their current stats. That actor will use ActorSelection with a wildcard to accomplish that goal. A rough outline if the code for this approach is as follows:
case class SessionStats(foo:Int, bar:Int)
case object GetSessionStats
class SessionActor extends Actor{
def receive = {
case GetSessionStats =>
println(s"${self.path} received a request to get stats")
sender ! SessionStats(1, 2)
}
}
case object GatherStats
class SessionStatsGatherer extends Actor{
context.system.scheduler.schedule(5 seconds, 5 seconds, self, GatherStats)(context.dispatcher)
def receive = {
case GatherStats =>
println("Waking up to gether stats")
val sel = context.system.actorSelection("/user/session*")
sel ! GetSessionStats
case SessionStats(f, b) =>
println(s"got session stats from ${sender.path}, values are $f and $b")
}
}
Then you could test this code with the following:
val system = ActorSystem("test")
system.actorOf(Props[SessionActor], "session-1")
system.actorOf(Props[SessionActor], "session-2")
system.actorOf(Props[SessionStatsGatherer])
Thread.sleep(10000)
system.actorOf(Props[SessionActor], "session-3")
So with this approach, as long as we use a naming convention, we can use an actor selection with a wildcard to always find all of the session actors even though they are constantly coming (starting) and going (stopping).
Option 2
A somewhat similar approach, but in this one, we use a centralized actor to spawn the session actors and act as a supervisor to them. This central actor also contains the logic to periodically poll for stats, but since it's the parent, it does not need an ActorSelection and can instead just use its children list. That would look like this:
case object SpawnSession
class SessionsManager extends Actor{
context.system.scheduler.schedule(5 seconds, 5 seconds, self, GatherStats)(context.dispatcher)
var sessionCount = 1
def receive = {
case SpawnSession =>
val session = context.actorOf(Props[SessionActor], s"session-$sessionCount")
println(s"Spawned session: ${session.path}")
sessionCount += 1
sender ! session
case GatherStats =>
println("Waking up to get session stats")
context.children foreach (_ ! GetSessionStats)
case SessionStats(f, b) =>
println(s"got session stats from ${sender.path}, values are $f and $b")
}
}
And could be tested as follows:
val system = ActorSystem("test")
val manager = system.actorOf(Props[SessionsManager], "manager")
manager ! SpawnSession
manager ! SpawnSession
Thread.sleep(10000)
manager ! SpawnSession
Now, these examples are extremely trivialized, but hopefully they paint a picture for how you could go about solving this issue with either ActorSelection or a management/supervision dynamic. And a bonus is that ask is not needed in either and also no blocking.
There have been many additional changes in this project, so my answer/comments have been delayed quite a bit :-/
First, the session stats gathering should not be periodical, but on request. My original idea was to "mis-use" the actor system as my map of all existing session actors, so that I would not need a supervisor actor knowing all sessions.
This goal has shown to be elusive - session actors depend on shared state, so the session creator must watch sessions anyways.
This makes Option 2 the obvious answer here - the session creator has to watch all children anyways.
The most vexing hurdle with option 1 was "how to determine when all (current) answers are there" - I wanted the statistics request to take a snapshot of all currently existing actor names, query them, ignore failures (if a session dies before it can be queried, it can be ignored here) - the statistics request is only a debugging tool, i.e. something like a "best effort".
The actor selection api tangled me up in a thicket of futures (I am a Scala/Akka newbie), so I gave up on this route.
Option 2 is therefore better suited to my needs.