I'm using a custom mailbox with my Akka actor. My class looks something like this:
MyActor extends Actor with RequiresMessageQueue[DRMailbox]{ ... }
How can I access the DRMailbox object in Akka actor? I have implemented some methods in DRMailbox which I want to share with my Akka actor.
This doesn't seem possible, by design. From the documentation:
An important feature in which Akka differs from some other actor model
implementations is that the current behavior must always handle the
next dequeued message, there is no scanning the mailbox for the next
matching one. Failure to handle a message will typically be treated as
a failure, unless this behavior is overridden.
If you are really trying to access the mailbox from within an Actor then this suggests that you may be misusing the Actor pattern and should reconsider your design...
Related
How can I test an actor? Since the calls are not synchronous, and one messages can cause multiple messages to be sent, what are the ways of testing it?
E.g. How can I test that my actor sent 3 messages in response to another message?
In general you cannot test what an actor has done unless it interacts with a trait or interface you provide in the construction or in an input message. So if you have an actor like the following.
actor MyActor
be do_stuff(receiver: MyReceiver)
You use a pattern where you combine a timer, for a timeout, and a wrapper actor that provides MyReceiver to test if the actor actually did send the message or sequence of messages that where expected.
Pony already includes the ponytest package with some support for this kind of tests. You can check the PonyTest actor at GitHub. Basically you have to specify a timeout and ensure one of your actors calls complete in the test helper for success. Note that the API has changed since the last stable version.
It is a general question about developing with akka actor system.
I know, it sacrifices static type checking for greater flexibility, that is not the problem. Java does the same thing all the way.
But I'd like at least to check compatibility of ActorRefs dynamically. I searched for some method like actorRef.asInstanceOf[ActorType]. Such method should provide validation for an actorRef passed through messages. And it would allow safe application development. But I've found no method to do any kind of type check. Its even impossible to check if an actorRef correspond to given Props.
How this task typically solved in akka application? Are there any third-party tools for dynamic checks?
The purpose of ActorRef is to completely abstract the recipient. Sending a message to it provides absolutely no guarantees about a response or even suitability of the message being sent. The recipient could drop the message, route it, stash it or handle it. Any contract about handling and causing possible response messages to be emitted is entirely an informal agreement.
Now, that sounds like a lot to give up in a statically typed environment, but it provides a programming model that brings its own slew of advantages which by their design require that you are sending and receiving messages with the assumption that the messages will be handled but without any knowledge where or when they will be handled.
Regarding how this task is typically solved in akka applications is by configuration and/discovery. The contract of acceptable Messages is usually placed into a Protocol object, while the valid recipient for those Messages is either injected into the calling Actor at creation or queryable via some DiscoveryProtocol (itself hidden behind an ActorRef)
Let's say you have a UserRepository you want to query, you would create protocol like this:
case class User(id: Int, ... )
object UserRepositoryProtocol {
case class GetUser(userId: Int)
}
Further, let's assume that the ActorRef of UserRepository was not injected, but because it is just one of many services your actor might use has to be discovered via a general Discovery service:
object DiscoveryProtocol {
case class Discover(type: String)
case class Discovered(type: String, ref: ActorRef)
}
Now you can fetch a user like this:
(discoveryRef ? Discover("UserRepository")).flatMap {
case Discovered("UserRepository",repository) =>
(repository ? GetUser(id)).map {
case user:User => // do something with the user
}
}
The above condenses discovery and calls into a chain of ask operations. Chances are you would want to cache the discovered ref and or hand off the retrieved user to some other Actor that's doing the work, breaking each '?' into a ! and a matching receive in the same or different actor.
This last point illustrates the power of the actor model. In a traditional request => response model, the requestor and recipient of the response would have to be the same just by virtue of function signatures, but in the actor model, you can send from one actor, spawn a worker that will handle the response, etc.
Assume that an actor is not only encapsulated behind an actor ref, but that the physical location of an actor is also unknown. An actor can be running on another physical server or VM. You can't call instanceOf on an object in another VM - how can you expect to get the class of an actor then?
Now, when building, I would recommend you consider that all actors are remote via Akka's location transparency. (http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/snapshot/general/remoting.html) If you assume all actors are remote, suddenly you'll think about your designs a little differently. Think of Akka as a Distribution Toolkit - that is its primary benefit!
If you're trying to reflect on actors during runtime, then there is probably something wrong with your design. Instead, you need to know what messages actors can accept and respond to.
If you really want to know what an actor can and can't do, then you could think of modelling some sort of "Accepts" method where an actor would reply with the current version of the described API that the actor implements for example - in this way your client and server can talk back and forth about what capabilities etc are supported dynamically during runtime.
I hope that contributes something to the discussion - just remember to always think of an actor as something that's running somewhere else and you'll design appropriately. The benefit of doing so is that you'll be able to scale out your applications with very minimal effort if your user base unexpectedly explodes!
Is there any standard way of formalizing my scala/akka actor api? Imho, situation where I need to look into implementation to know what to send is not really a good option. Also, if implementation has changed and my message is no longer valid(not invoking action I think it invokes) I don't get any warning or error.
This is a question that is discussed very much in the community. I heard that maybe Akka 3 will have better support for typesafe actors, but that is some time down the road.
In the mean time you could use TypedActors, though the general suggestion is to use them at the boundaries of your application.
A nice approach that does not give you any typesafety, but makes the contract of an actor more visible, is to define the messages an actor can receive in their companion object. This way each time you want to send a message to an actor you choose from the message its companion object defines. This of course works best if you have specific messages for each actor. If you change the implementation you could remove the old message and add a new one, so that everyone who wanted to use the old implementation would get compiler errors.
Lastly there was a nice pattern last week on the mailing list. He creates traits to define the contracts for the actors and their consumers, but you still need to take care that the consumer mix in the correct trait.
In my experience, the best way to make sure everything works is an extensive test suite which will test each actor for itself, but also the communication between specific actors.
The approach generally taken in Erlang is to avoid sending messages to a process directly, and to provide additional API in the same module which defines the behavior of the process. In Akka it would look like
class Foo extends Actor {
// handles messages Bar(x: Int) and Baz
}
object Foo {
def bar(foo: ActorRef, x: Int) = foo ! Bar(x)
def baz(foo: ActorRef) = (foo ? Baz).mapTo[TypeOfResponseToBaz]
}
One problem is handling return messages, since Erlang generally promotes more synchronous style than Akka does. This may be handled by a naming convention (e.g. BarResponse or FooBarResponse if different actors handle the same message with different responses).
I am a little confused by how I am supposed to get a reference to my Actor once it has been crerated in the Akka system. Say I have the following:
class MyActor(val x: Int) extends Actor {
def receive = {
case Msg => doSth()
}
}
And at some stage I would create the actor as follows:
val actorRef = system.actorOf(Props(new MyActor(2), name = "Some actor")
But when I need to refer to the MyActor object I cannot see any way to get it from the actor ref?
Thanks
Des
I'm adding my comment as an answer since it seems to be viewed as something worth putting in as an answer.
Not being able to directly access the actor is the whole idea behind actor systems. You are not supposed to be able to get at the underlying actor class instance. The actor ref is a lightweight proxy to your actor class instance. Allowing people to directly access the actor instance could lead down the path of mutable data issues/concurrent state update issues and that's a bad path to go down. By forcing you to go through the ref (and thus the mailbox), state and data will always be safe as only one message is processed at a time.
I think cmbaxter has a good answer, but I want to make it just a bit more clear. The ActorRef is your friend for the following reasons:
You cannot ever access the underlying actor. Actors receive their thread of execution from the Dispatcher given to them when they are created. They operate on one mailbox message at a time, so you never have to worry about concurrency inside of the actor unless YOU introduce it (by handling a message asynchronously with a Future or another Actor instance via delegation, for example). If someone had access to the underlying class behind the ActorRef, they could easily call into the actor via a method using another thread, thus negating the point of using the Actor to avoid concurrency in the first place.
ActorRefs provide Location Transparency. By this, I mean that the Actor instance could exist locally on the same JVM and machine as the actor from which you would like to send it a message, or it could exist on a different JVM, on a different box, in a different data center. You don't know, you don't care, and your code is not littered with the details of HOW the message will be sent to that actor, thus making it more declarative (focused on the what you want to do business-wise, not how it will be done). When you start using Remoting or Clusters, this will prove very valuable.
ActorRefs mask the instance of the actor behind it when failure occurs, as well. With the old Scala Actors, you had no such proxy and when an actor "died" (threw an Exception) that resulted in a new instance of the Actor type being created in its place. You then had to propagate that new instance reference to anyone who needed it. With ActorRef, you don't care that the Actor has been reincarnated - it's all transparent.
There is one way to get access to the underlying actor when you want to do testing, using TestActorRef.underlyingActor. This way, you can write unit tests against functionality written in methods inside the actor. Useful for checking basic business logic without worrying about Akka dynamics.
Hope that helps.
Is there any way to specify what type of message an actor can accept and give a compile error if anything tries to send it some other type?
Not sure whether it answers your question, but I hope it will give you some ideas. Maybe you are searching for something like Typed Actors from Akka project:
The Typed Actors are implemented through Typed Actors. It uses AOP through AspectWerkz to turn regular POJOs into asynchronous non-blocking Actors with semantics of the Actor Model. E.g. each message dispatch is turned into a message that is put on a queue to be processed by the Typed Actor sequentially one by one.
So you define interface and implementation and then register them as actor. Akka will create proxy for your interface that still use actor model under the hood. And you still able to use following message passing styles:
fire-and-forget
request-reply
request-reply-with-future
I think the answer is in the post referred to by #mkneissl :
"The common practice is to declare what messages an Actor can recieve in the companion object of the Actor, which makes it very much easier to know what it can receive."
An example of that would be useful...
While typed actors do solve the problem to some extent, you have to keep in mind that this only provides partial static type safety — you are still silently doing a dynamic cast from an untyped actor to a typed one by that typedActorOf(...) call, and that's where the dynamicity creeps in and static correctness is lost — if the underlying ref turns out to point to an actor that does not actually obey the typed interface, you have a bug; Akka attempts no runtime verification of who's "backing" the typed ref so typed messages end up being sent to actors that can't (properly) respond to them.
All in all, to my best knowledge, the only way to go about achieving complete (?) static type safety with Akka is to use Typed Channels: http://letitcrash.com/post/45188487245/the-second-step-akka-typed-channels.