I have an API that creates actor A (at runtime). Then, A creates Actor B (at runtime as well).
I have another API that creates Actor C (different from actor A, No command code between them) and C creates Actor D.
I want to gracefully shutdown A and C once B and D has finished processing their messages (A and C not necessarily run together, They are unrelated).
Sending poison pill to A/C is not good enough because the children (B/D) will still get context stop, and will not be able to finish their tasks.
I understand I need to implement a new type of message.
I didn't understand how to create an infrastructure so both A and C will know how to respond to this message without having same duplicate receive method in both.
The solution I found was to create a new trait that extends Actor and override the unhandled method.
The code looks like this:
object SuicideActor {
case class PleaseKillYourself()
case class IKilledMyself()
}
trait SuicideActor extends Actor {
override def unhandled(message: Any): Unit = message match {
case PleaseKillYourself =>
Logger.debug(s"Actor ${self.path} received PleaseKillYourself - stopping children and aborting...")
val livingChildren = context.children.size
if (livingChildren == 0) {
endLife()
} else {
context.children.foreach(_ ! PleaseKillYourself)
context become waitForChildren(livingChildren)
}
case _ => super.unhandled(message)
}
protected[crystalball] def waitForChildren(livingChildren: Int): Receive = {
case IKilledMyself =>
val remaining = livingChildren - 1
if (remaining == 0) { endLife() }
else { context become waitForChildren(remaining) }
}
private def endLife(): Unit = {
context.parent ! IKilledMyself
context stop self
}
}
But this sound a bit hacky.... Is there a better (non hacky) solution ?
I think designing your own termination procedure is not necessary and potentially can cause headache for future maintainers of you code as this is nonstandard akka behaviour that needs to be yet again understood.
If A and C unrelated and can terminate independently, the following options are possible. To avoid any confusion, I'll use just actor A and B in my explanations.
Option 1.
Actor A uses context.watch on newly created actor B and reacts on Terminated message in its receive method. Actor B calls context.stop(context.self) when it's done with its task and this will generate Terminated event that will be handled by actor A that can clean up its state if needed and terminate too.
Check these docs for more details.
Option 2.
Actor B calls context.stop(context.parent) to terminate the parent directly when it's done with its own task. This option does not allow parent to react and perform additional clean up tasks if needed.
Finally, sharing this logic between actors A and C can be done with a trait in the way you did but the logic is very small and having duplicated code is not all the time a bad thing.
So it took me a bit but I find my answer.
I implemented The Reaper Pattern
The SuicideActor create a dedicated Reaper actor when it finished its block. The Reaper watch all of the SuicideActor children and once they all Terminated it send a PoisonPill to the SuicideActor and to itself
The SuicideActor code is :
trait SuicideActor extends Actor {
def killSwitch(block: => Unit): Unit = {
block
Logger.info(s"Actor ${self.path.name} is commencing suicide sequence...")
context become PartialFunction.empty
val children = context.children
val reaper = context.system.actorOf(ReaperActor.props(self), s"ReaperFor${self.path.name}")
reaper ! Reap(children.toSeq)
}
override def postStop(): Unit = Logger.debug(s"Actor ${self.path.name} is dead.")
}
And the Reaper is:
object ReaperActor {
case class Reap(underWatch: Seq[ActorRef])
def props(supervisor: ActorRef): Props = {
Props(new ReaperActor(supervisor))
}
}
class ReaperActor(supervisor: ActorRef) extends Actor {
override def preStart(): Unit = Logger.info(s"Reaper for ${supervisor.path.name} started")
override def postStop(): Unit = Logger.info(s"Reaper for ${supervisor.path.name} ended")
override def receive: Receive = {
case Reap(underWatch) =>
if (underWatch.isEmpty) {
killLeftOvers
} else {
underWatch.foreach(context.watch)
context become reapRemaining(underWatch.size)
underWatch.foreach(_ ! PoisonPill)
}
}
def reapRemaining(livingActorsNumber: Int): Receive = {
case Terminated(_) =>
val remainingActorsNumber = livingActorsNumber - 1
if (remainingActorsNumber == 0) {
killLeftOvers
} else {
context become reapRemaining(remainingActorsNumber)
}
}
private def killLeftOvers = {
Logger.debug(s"All children of ${supervisor.path.name} are dead killing supervisor")
supervisor ! PoisonPill
self ! PoisonPill
}
}
Related
I am trying to implement a simple one-to-many pub/sub pattern using a BroadcastHub. This fails silently for large numbers of subscribers, which makes me think I am hitting some limit on the number of streams I can run.
First, let's define some events:
sealed trait Event
case object EX extends Event
case object E1 extends Event
case object E2 extends Event
case object E3 extends Event
case object E4 extends Event
case object E5 extends Event
I have implemented the publisher using a BroadcastHub, adding a Sink.actorRefWithAck each time I want to add a new subscriber. Publishing the EX event ends the broadcast:
trait Publisher extends Actor with ActorLogging {
implicit val materializer = ActorMaterializer()
private val sourceQueue = Source.queue[Event](Publisher.bufferSize, Publisher.overflowStrategy)
private val (
queue: SourceQueueWithComplete[Event],
source: Source[Event, NotUsed]
) = {
val (q,s) = sourceQueue.toMat(BroadcastHub.sink(bufferSize = 256))(Keep.both).run()
s.runWith(Sink.ignore)
(q,s)
}
def publish(evt: Event) = {
log.debug("Publishing Event: {}", evt.getClass().toString())
queue.offer(evt)
evt match {
case EX => queue.complete()
case _ => Unit
}
}
def subscribe(actor: ActorRef, ack: ActorRef): Unit =
source.runWith(
Sink.actorRefWithAck(
actor,
onInitMessage = Publisher.StreamInit(ack),
ackMessage = Publisher.StreamAck,
onCompleteMessage = Publisher.StreamDone,
onFailureMessage = onErrorMessage))
def onErrorMessage(ex: Throwable) = Publisher.StreamFail(ex)
def publisherBehaviour: Receive = {
case Publisher.Subscribe(sub, ack) => subscribe(sub, ack.getOrElse(sender()))
case Publisher.StreamAck => Unit
}
override def receive = LoggingReceive { publisherBehaviour }
}
object Publisher {
final val bufferSize = 5
final val overflowStrategy = OverflowStrategy.backpressure
case class Subscribe(sub: ActorRef, ack: Option[ActorRef])
case object StreamAck
case class StreamInit(ack: ActorRef)
case object StreamDone
case class StreamFail(ex: Throwable)
}
Subscribers can implement the Subscriber trait to separate the logic:
trait Subscriber {
def onInit(publisher: ActorRef): Unit = ()
def onInit(publisher: ActorRef, k: KillSwitch): Unit = onInit(publisher)
def onEvent(event: Event): Unit = ()
def onDone(publisher: ActorRef, subscriber: ActorRef): Unit = ()
def onFail(e: Throwable, publisher: ActorRef, subscriber: ActorRef): Unit = ()
}
The actor logic is quite simple:
class SubscriberActor(subscriber: Subscriber) extends Actor with ActorLogging {
def subscriberBehaviour: Receive = {
case Publisher.StreamInit(ack) => {
log.debug("Stream initialized.")
subscriber.onInit(sender())
sender() ! Publisher.StreamAck
ack.forward(Publisher.StreamInit(ack))
}
case Publisher.StreamDone => {
log.debug("Stream completed.")
subscriber.onDone(sender(),self)
}
case Publisher.StreamFail(ex) => {
log.error(ex, "Stream failed!")
subscriber.onFail(ex,sender(),self)
}
case e: Event => {
log.debug("Observing Event: {}",e)
subscriber.onEvent(e)
sender() ! Publisher.StreamAck
}
}
override def receive = LoggingReceive { subscriberBehaviour }
}
One of the key points is that all subscribers must receive all messages sent by the publisher, so we have to know that all streams have materialized and all actors are ready to receive before starting the broadcast. This is why the StreamInit message is forwarded to another, user-provided actor.
To test this, I define a simple MockPublisher that just broadcasts a list of events when told to do so:
class MockPublisher(events: Event*) extends Publisher {
def receiveBehaviour: Receive = {
case MockPublish => events map publish
}
override def receive = LoggingReceive { receiveBehaviour orElse publisherBehaviour }
}
case object MockPublish
I also define a MockSubscriber who merely counts how many events it has seen:
class MockSubscriber extends Subscriber {
var count = 0
val promise = Promise[Int]()
def future = promise.future
override def onInit(publisher: ActorRef): Unit = count = 0
override def onEvent(event: Event): Unit = count += 1
override def onDone(publisher: ActorRef, subscriber: ActorRef): Unit = promise.success(count)
override def onFail(e: Throwable, publisher: ActorRef, subscriber: ActorRef): Unit = promise.failure(e)
}
And a small method for subscription:
object MockSubscriber {
def sub(publisher: ActorRef, ack: ActorRef)(implicit system: ActorSystem): Future[Int] = {
val s = new MockSubscriber()
implicit val tOut = Timeout(1.minute)
val a = system.actorOf(Props(new SubscriberActor(s)))
val f = publisher ! Publisher.Subscribe(a, Some(ack))
s.future
}
}
I put everything together in a unit test:
class SubscriberTests extends TestKit(ActorSystem("SubscriberTests")) with
WordSpecLike with Matchers with BeforeAndAfterAll with ImplicitSender {
override def beforeAll:Unit = {
system.eventStream.setLogLevel(Logging.DebugLevel)
}
override def afterAll:Unit = {
println("Shutting down...")
TestKit.shutdownActorSystem(system)
}
"The Subscriber" must {
"publish events to many observers" in {
val n = 9
val p = system.actorOf(Props(new MockPublisher(E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,EX)))
val q = scala.collection.mutable.Queue[Future[Int]]()
for (i <- 1 to n) {
q += MockSubscriber.sub(p,self)
}
for (i <- 1 to n) {
expectMsgType[Publisher.StreamInit](70.seconds)
}
p ! MockPublish
q.map { f => Await.result(f, 10.seconds) should be (6) }
}
}
}
This test succeeds for relatively small values of n, but fails for, say, val n = 90000. No caught or uncaught exception appears anywhere and neither does any out-of-memory complaint from Java (which does occur if I go even higher).
What am I missing?
Edit: Tried this on multiple computers with different specs. Debug info shows no messages reach any of the subscribers once n is high enough.
Akka Stream (and any other reactive stream, actually) provides you backpressure. If you hadn't messed up with how you create your consumers (e.g. allowing creation of 1GB JSON, which will you chop into smaller pieces only after you fetched it into memory) you should have a comfortable situation where you can consider your memory usage pretty much upper-bounded (because of how backpressure manage push-pull mechanics). Once you measure where your upper-bound lies, your can set up your JVM and container memory, so that you could let it run without fear of out of memory errors (provided that there is not other thing happening in your JVM which could cause memory usage spike).
So, from this we can see that there is some constraint on how much stream you can run in parallel - specifically you can run only as much of them as your memory allows you. CPU should not be a limitation (as you will have multiple threads), but if you will start too much of them on one machine, then CPU inevitably with have to switch between different streams making each of them slower. It might not be a technical blocker, but you might end up in a situation where processing is so slow that it doesn't fulfill its business purpose (though, I guess, you would have to run much more than few of streams at once).
In your tests you might run into some other issues as well. E.g. if you reuse the same thread pool for some blocking operations as you use for Actor System without informing the thread pool that they are blocking, you might end up with a dead lock (as a matter of the fact, you should run all IO blocking operations on a different thread pool than "computing" operations). Having 90000(!) concurrent things happening at the same time (and probably having the same small thread pool) almost guarantees running into issues (I guess you could run into issues even if instead of actors you would run the code directly on futures). Here you are using actor system in tests, which AFAIR use blocking logic only highlighting all the possible issues with small thread pools which keep blocking and non-blocking tasks in the same place.
I need an actor to stop one of its children, so that I can possibly create a new actor with same name (UUID ?).
I've got an ActorSystem with one Actor child. And this child creates new actors with context.actorOf and context.watch. When I try to stop one of these using context.stop, I observe that its postStop method is called as expected, but no matter how long I wait (seconds... minutes...), it never sends back the Terminated message to its creator (and watching) actor.
I read this in the AKKA documentation:
Since stopping an actor is asynchronous, you cannot immediately reuse the name of the child you just stopped; this will result in an InvalidActorNameException. Instead, watch the terminating actor and create its replacement in response to the Terminated message which will eventually arrive.
I don't care waiting for normal termination, but I really need actors to eventually terminate when asked to. Am I missing something ? Should I create actors directly from the system instead of from an actor ?
EDIT:
Here is my code :
object MyApp extends App {
def start() = {
val system = ActorSystem("MySystem")
val supervisor = system.actorOf(Supervisor.props(), name = "Supervisor")
}
override def main(args: Array[String]) {
start()
}
}
object Supervisor {
def props(): Props = Props(new Supervisor())
}
case class Supervisor() extends Actor {
private var actor: ActorRef = null
start()
def newActor(name: String): ActorRef = {
try {
actor = context.actorOf(MyActor.props(name), name)
context.watch(actor)
} catch {
case iane: InvalidActorNameException =>
println(name + " not terminated yet.")
null
}
}
def terminateActor() {
if (actor != null) context.stop(actor)
actor = null
}
def start() {
while (true) {
// do something
terminateActor()
newActor("new name possibly same name as a previously terminated one")
Thread.sleep(5000)
}
}
override def receive = {
case Terminated(x) => println("Received termination confirmation: " + x)
case _ => println("Unexpected message.")
}
override def postStop = {
println("Supervisor called postStop().")
}
}
object MyActor {
def props(name: String): Props = Props(new MyActor(name))
}
case class MyActor(name: String) extends Actor {
run()
def run() = {
// do something
}
override def receive = {
case _ => ()
}
override def postStop {
println(name + " called postStop().")
}
}
EDIT²: As mentionned by #DanGetz, one shall not need to call Thread.sleep in an AKKA actor. Here what I needed was a periodical routine. This can be done using the AKKA context scheduler. See: http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.3.3/scala/howto.html#scheduling-periodic-messages . Instead I was blocking the actor in an infinite loop, preventing it to use its asynchronous mecanisms (messages). I changed the title since the problem was actually not involving actor termination.
It's hard to gauge exactly what you want now that the question has changed a bit, but I'm going to take a stab anyway. Below you will find a modified version of your code that shows both periodic scheduling of a task (one that kicks off the child termination process) and also watching a child and only creating a new one with the same name when we are sure the previous one has stopped. If you run the code below, every 5 seconds you should see it kill the child and wait for the termination message before stating a new one with the exact same name. I hope this is what you were looking for:
object Supervisor {
val ChildName = "foo"
def props(): Props = Props(new Supervisor())
case class TerminateChild(name:String)
}
case class Supervisor() extends Actor {
import Supervisor._
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import context._
//Start child upon creation of this actor
newActor(ChildName)
override def preStart = {
//Schedule regular job to run every 5 seconds
context.system.scheduler.schedule(5 seconds, 5 seconds, self, TerminateChild(ChildName))
}
def newActor(name: String): ActorRef = {
val child = context.actorOf(MyActor.props(name), name)
watch(child)
println(s"created child for name $name")
child
}
def terminateActor(name:String) = context.child(ChildName).foreach{ ref =>
println(s"terminating child for name $name")
context stop ref
}
override def receive = {
case TerminateChild(name) =>
terminateActor(name)
case Terminated(x) =>
println("Received termination confirmation: " + x)
newActor(ChildName)
case _ => println("Unexpected message.")
}
override def postStop = {
println("Supervisor called postStop().")
}
}
I've a very simple example where I've an Actor (SimpleActor) that perform a periodic task by sending a message to itself. The message is scheduled in the constructor for the actor. In the normal case (i.e., without faults) everything works fine.
But what if the Actor has to deal with faults. I've another Actor (SimpleActorWithFault). This actor could have faults. In this case, I'm generating one myself by throwing an exception. When a fault happens (i.e., SimpleActorWithFault throws an exception) it is automatically restarted. However, this restart messes up the scheduler inside the Actor which no longer functions as excepted. And if the faults happens rapidly enough it generates more unexpected behavior.
My question is what's the preferred way to dealing with faults in such cases? I know I can use Try blocks to handle exceptions. But what if I'm extending another actor where I cannot put a Try in the super class or some case when I'm an excepted fault happens in the actor.
import akka.actor.{Props, ActorLogging}
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import akka.actor.Actor
case object MessageA
case object MessageToSelf
class SimpleActor extends Actor with ActorLogging {
//schedule a message to self every second
context.system.scheduler.schedule(0 seconds, 1 seconds, self, MessageToSelf)
//keeps track of some internal state
var count: Int = 0
def receive: Receive = {
case MessageA => {
log.info("[SimpleActor] Got MessageA at %d".format(count))
}
case MessageToSelf => {
//update state and tell the world about its current state
count = count + 1
log.info("[SimpleActor] Got scheduled message at %d".format(count))
}
}
}
class SimpleActorWithFault extends Actor with ActorLogging {
//schedule a message to self every second
context.system.scheduler.schedule(0 seconds, 1 seconds, self, MessageToSelf)
var count: Int = 0
def receive: Receive = {
case MessageA => {
log.info("[SimpleActorWithFault] Got MessageA at %d".format(count))
}
case MessageToSelf => {
count = count + 1
log.info("[SimpleActorWithFault] Got scheduled message at %d".format(count))
//at some point generate a fault
if (count > 5) {
log.info("[SimpleActorWithFault] Going to throw an exception now %d".format(count))
throw new Exception("Excepttttttiooooooon")
}
}
}
}
object MainApp extends App {
implicit val akkaSystem = akka.actor.ActorSystem()
//Run the Actor without any faults or exceptions
akkaSystem.actorOf(Props(classOf[SimpleActor]))
//comment the above line and uncomment the following to run the actor with faults
//akkaSystem.actorOf(Props(classOf[SimpleActorWithFault]))
}
The correct way is to push down the risky behavior into it's own actor. This pattern is called the Error Kernel pattern (see Akka Concurrency, Section 8.5):
This pattern describes a very common-sense approach to supervision
that differentiates actors from one another based on any volatile
state that they may hold.
In a nutshell, it means that actors whose state is precious should not
be allowed to fail or restart. Any actor that holds precious data is
protected such that any risky operations are relegated to a slave
actor who, if restarted, only causes good things to happen.
The error kernel pattern implies pushing levels of risk further down
the tree.
See also another tutorial here.
So in your case it would be something like this:
SimpleActor
|- ActorWithFault
Here SimpleActor acts as a supervisor for ActorWithFault. The default supervising strategy of any actor is to restart a child on Exception and escalate on anything else:
http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/snapshot/scala/fault-tolerance.html
Escalating means that the actor itself may get restarted. Since you really don't want to restart SimpleActor you could make it always restart the ActorWithFault and never escalate by overriding the supervisor strategy:
class SimpleActor {
override def preStart(){
// our faulty actor --- we will supervise it from now on
context.actorOf(Props[ActorWithFault], "FaultyActor")
...
override val supervisorStrategy = OneForOneStrategy () {
case _: ActorKilledException => Escalate
case _: ActorInitializationException => Escalate
case _ => Restart // keep restarting faulty actor
}
}
To avoid messing up the scheduler:
class SimpleActor extends Actor with ActorLogging {
private var cancellable: Option[Cancellable] = None
override def preStart() = {
//schedule a message to self every second
cancellable = Option(context.system.scheduler.schedule(0 seconds, 1 seconds, self, MessageToSelf))
}
override def postStop() = {
cancellable.foreach(_.cancel())
cancellable = None
}
...
To correctly handle exceptions (akka.actor.Status.Failure is for correct answer to an ask in case of Ask pattern usage by sender):
...
def receive: Receive = {
case MessageA => {
try {
log.info("[SimpleActor] Got MessageA at %d".format(count))
} catch {
case e: Exception =>
sender ! akka.actor.Status.Failure(e)
log.error(e.getMessage, e)
}
}
...
I have an actor which creates another one:
class MyActor1 extends Actor {
val a2 = system actorOf Props(new MyActor(123))
}
The second actor must initialize (bootstrap) itself once it created and only after that it must be able to do other job.
class MyActor2(a: Int) extends Actor {
//initialized (bootstrapped) itself, potentially a long operation
//how?
val initValue = // get from a server
//handle incoming messages
def receive = {
case "job1" => // do some job but after it's initialized (bootstrapped) itself
}
}
So the very first thing MyActor2 must do is do some job of initializing itself. It might take some time because it's request to a server. Only after it finishes successfully, it must become able to handle incoming messages through receive. Before that - it must not do that.
Of course, a request to a server must be asynchronous (preferably, using Future, not async, await or other high level stuff like AsyncHttpClient). I know how to use Future, it's not a problem, though.
How do I ensure that?
p.s. My guess is that it must send a message to itself first.
You could use become method to change actor's behavior after initialization:
class MyActor2(a: Int) extends Actor {
server ! GetInitializationData
def initialize(d: InitializationData) = ???
//handle incoming messages
val initialized: Receive = {
case "job1" => // do some job but after it's initialized (bootstrapped) itself
}
def receive = {
case d # InitializationData =>
initialize(d)
context become initialized
}
}
Note that such actor will drop all messages before initialization. You'll have to preserve these messages manually, for instance using Stash:
class MyActor2(a: Int) extends Actor with Stash {
...
def receive = {
case d # InitializationData =>
initialize(d)
unstashAll()
context become initialized
case _ => stash()
}
}
If you don't want to use var for initialization you could create initialized behavior using InitializationData like this:
class MyActor2(a: Int) extends Actor {
server ! GetInitializationData
//handle incoming messages
def initialized(intValue: Int, strValue: String): Receive = {
case "job1" => // use `intValue` and `strValue` here
}
def receive = {
case InitializationData(intValue, strValue) =>
context become initialized(intValue, strValue)
}
}
I don't know wether the proposed solution is a good idea. It seems awkward to me to send a Initialization message. Actors have a lifecycle and offer some hooks. When you have a look at the API, you will discover the prestart hook.
Therefore i propose the following:
When the actor is created, its preStart hook is run, where you do your server request which returns a future.
While the future is not completed all incoming messages are stashed.
When the future completes it uses context.become to use your real/normal receive method.
After the become you unstash everything.
Here is a rough sketch of the code (bad solution, see real solution below):
class MyActor2(a: Int) extends Actor with Stash{
def preStart = {
val future = // do your necessary server request (should return a future)
future onSuccess {
context.become(normalReceive)
unstash()
}
}
def receive = initialReceive
def initialReceive = {
case _ => stash()
}
def normalReceive = {
// your normal Receive Logic
}
}
UPDATE: Improved solution according to Senias feedback
class MyActor2(a: Int) extends Actor with Stash{
def preStart = {
val future = // do your necessary server request (should return a future)
future onSuccess {
self ! InitializationDone
}
}
def receive = initialReceive
def initialReceive = {
case InitializationDone =>
context.become(normalReceive)
unstash()
case _ => stash()
}
def normalReceive = {
// your normal Receive Logic
}
case class InitializationDone
}
I'm getting all in a twist trying to get this to work. New to scala and to actors so may inadvertently be making bad design decisions - please tell me if so.
The setup is this:
I have a controlling actor which contains a number of worker actors. Each worker represents a calculation that for a given input will spit out 1..n outputs. The controller has to set off each worker, collect the returned outputs, then carry on and do a bunch more stuff once this is complete. This is how I approached it using receive in the controller actor:
class WorkerActor extends Actor {
def act() {
loop {
react {
case DoJob =>
for (1 to n) sender ! Result
sender ! Done
}
}
}
}
The worker actor is simple enough - it spits out results until it's done, when it sends back a Done message.
class ControllerActor(val workers: List[WorkerActor]) extends Actor {
def act() {
workers.foreach(w => w ! DoJob)
receiveResults(workers.size)
//do a bunch of other stuff
}
def receiveResults(count: Int) {
if (count == 0) return
receive {
case Result =>
// do something with this result (that updates own mutable state)
receiveResults(count)
case Done
receiveResults(count - 1)
}
}
}
The controller actor kicks off each of the workers, then recursively calls receive until it has received a Done message for each of the workers.
This works, but I need to create lots of the controller actors, so receive is too heavyweight - I need to replace it with react.
However, when I use react, the behind-the-scenes exception kicks in once the final Done message is processed, and the controller actor's act method is short-circuited, so none of the "//do a bunch of other stuff" that comes after happens.
I can make something happen after the final Done message by using andThen { } - but I actually need to do several sets of calculations in this manner so would end up with a ridiculously nested structure of andThen { andThen { andThen } }s.
I also want to hide away this complexity in a method, which would then be moved into a separate trait, such that a controller actor with a number of lists of worker actors can just be something like this:
class ControllerActor extends Actor with CalculatingTrait {
//CalculatingTrait has performCalculations method
val listOne: List[WorkerActor]
val ListTwo: List[WorkerActor]
def act {
performCalculations(listOne)
performCalculations(listTwo)
}
}
So is there any way to stop the short-circuiting of the act method in the performCalculations method? Is there a better design approach I could be taking?
You can avoid react/receive entirely by using Akka actor's. Here's what you implementation could look like:
import akka.actor._
class WorkerActor extends Actor {
def receive = {
case DoJob =>
for (_ <- 1 to n) sender ! Result
sender ! Done
}
}
class ControllerActor(workers: List[ActorRef]) extends Actor {
private[this] var countdown = workers.size
override def preStart() {
workers.foreach(_ ! DoJob)
}
def receive = {
case Result =>
// do something with this result
case Done =>
countdown -= 1
if (countdown == 0) {
// do a bunch of other stuff
// It looks like your controllers die when the workers
// are done, so I'll do the same.
self ! PoisonPill
}
}
}
Here's how I might approach it (in way that seems to be more comments and boilerplate than actual content):
class WorkerController(val workerCriteria: List[WorkerCriteria]) {
// The actors that only _I_ interact with are probably no one else's business
// Your call, though
val workers = generateWorkers(workerCriteria)
// No need for an `act` method--no need for this to even be an actor
/* Will send `DoJob` to each actor, expecting a reply from each.
* Could also use the `!!` operator (instead of `!?`) if you wanted
* them to return futures (so WorkerController could continue doing other
* things while the results compute). The futures could then be evaluated
* with `results map (_())`, which will _then_ halt execution to wait for each
* future that isn't already computed (if any).
*/
val results = workers map (_ !? DoJob)
//do a bunch of other stuff with your results
def generateWorkers(criteria: List[WorkerCriteria]) = // Create some workers!
}
class Worker extends Actor {
def act() {
loop {
react {
case DoJob =>
// Will generate a result and send it back to the caller
reply(generateResult)
}
}
}
def generateResult = // Result?
}
EDIT: Have just been reading about Akka actors and spotted that they "guarantee message order on a per sender basis". So I updated my example such that, if the controller needed to later ask the receiver for the computed value and needed to be sure it was all complete, it could do so with a message order guarantee on only a per sender basis (the example is still scala actors, not akka).
It finally hit me, with a bit of help from #Destin's answer, that I could make it a lot simpler by separating out the part of the controller responsible for kicking off the workers from the part responsible for accepting and using the results. Single responsibility principle I suppose... Here's what I did (separating out the original controlling actor into a controlling class and a 'receiver' actor):
case class DoJob(receiever: Actor)
case object Result
case object JobComplete
case object Acknowledged
case object Done
class Worker extends Actor {
def act {
loop {
react {
case DoJob(receiver) =>
receiver ! Result
receiver ! Result
receiver !? JobComplete match {
case Acknowledged =>
sender ! Done
}
}
}
}
}
class Receiver extends Actor {
def act {
loop {
react {
case Result => println("Got result!")
case JobComplete => sender ! Acknowledged
}
}
}
}
class Controller {
val receiver = new Receiver
val workers = List(new Worker, new Worker, new Worker)
receiver.start()
workers.foreach(_.start())
workers.map(_ !! DoJob(receiver)).map(_())
println("All the jobs have been done")
}