Here's the pattern I have come across:
An actor A has multiple children C1, ..., Cn. On receiving a message, A sends it to each of its children, which each do some calculation on the message, and on completion send it back to A. A would then like to combine the results of all the children to pass onto another actor.
What would a solution for this problem look like? Or is this an anti-pattern? In which case how should this problem be approached?
Here is a trivial example which hopefully illustrates my current solution. My concerns are that is duplicates code (up to symmetry); does not extend very well to 'lots' of children; and makes it quite hard to see what's going on.
import akka.actor.{Props, Actor}
case class Tagged[T](value: T, id: Int)
class A extends Actor {
import C1._
import C2._
val c1 = context.actorOf(Props[C1], "C1")
val c2 = context.actorOf(Props[C2], "C2")
var uid = 0
var c1Results = Map[Int, Int]()
var c2Results = Map[Int, Int]()
def receive = {
case n: Int => {
c1 ! Tagged(n, uid)
c2 ! Tagged(n, uid)
uid += 1
}
case Tagged(C1Result(n), id) => c2Results get id match {
case None => c1Results += (id -> n)
case Some(m) => {
c2Results -= id
context.parent ! (n, m)
}
}
case Tagged(C2Result(n), id) => c1Results get id match {
case None => c2Results += (id -> n)
case Some(m) => {
c1Results -= id
context.parent ! (m, n)
}
}
}
}
class C1 extends Actor {
import C1._
def receive = {
case Tagged(n: Int, id) => Tagged(C1Result(n), id)
}
}
object C1 {
case class C1Result(n: Int)
}
class C2 extends Actor {
import C2._
def receive = {
case Tagged(n: Int, id) => Tagged(C2Result(n), id)
}
}
object C2 {
case class C2Result(n: Int)
}
If you think the code looks god-awful, take it easy on me, I've just started learning akka ;)
In the case of many - or a varying number of - child actors, the ask pattern suggested by Zim-Zam will quickly get out of hand.
The aggregator pattern is designed to help with this kind of situation. It provides an Aggregator trait that you can use in an actor to perform your aggregation logic.
A client actor wanting to perform an aggregation can start an Aggregator based actor instance and send it a message that will kick off the aggregation process.
A new aggregator should be created for each aggregation operation and terminate on sending back the result (when it has received all responses or on a timeout).
An example of this pattern to sum integer values held by the actors represented by the Child class is listed below. (Note that there is no need for them to all be children supervised by the same parent actor: the SummationAggregator just needs a collection of ActorRefs.)
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import akka.actor._
import akka.contrib.pattern.Aggregator
object Child {
def props(value: Int): Props = Props(new Child(value))
case object GetValue
case class GetValueResult(value: Int)
}
class Child(value: Int) extends Actor {
import Child._
def receive = { case GetValue => sender ! GetValueResult(value) }
}
object SummationAggregator {
def props = Props(new SummationAggregator)
case object TimedOut
case class StartAggregation(targets: Seq[ActorRef])
case object BadCommand
case class AggregationResult(sum: Int)
}
class SummationAggregator extends Actor with Aggregator {
import Child._
import SummationAggregator._
expectOnce {
case StartAggregation(targets) =>
// Could do what this handler does in line but handing off to a
// separate class encapsulates the state a little more cleanly
new Handler(targets, sender())
case _ =>
sender ! BadCommand
context stop self
}
class Handler(targets: Seq[ActorRef], originalSender: ActorRef) {
// Could just store a running total and keep track of the number of responses
// that we are awaiting...
var valueResults = Set.empty[GetValueResult]
context.system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(1.second, self, TimedOut)
expect {
case TimedOut =>
// It might make sense to respond with what we have so far if some responses are still awaited...
respondIfDone(respondAnyway = true)
}
if (targets.isEmpty)
respondIfDone()
else
targets.foreach { t =>
t ! GetValue
expectOnce {
case vr: GetValueResult =>
valueResults += vr
respondIfDone()
}
}
def respondIfDone(respondAnyway: Boolean = false) = {
if (respondAnyway || valueResults.size == targets.size) {
originalSender ! AggregationResult(valueResults.foldLeft(0) { case (acc, GetValueResult(v)) => acc + v })
context stop self
}
}
}
}
To use this SummationAggregator from your parent actor you could do:
context.actorOf(SummationAggregator.props) ! StartAggregation(children)
and then handle AggregationResult somewhere in the parent's receive.
You can use ? instead of ! on the child actors - this will cause the child actors to return a Future with their (eventual) results, i.e. everything is still non-blocking up until you Await the outcome of the Future. The parent actor can then compose these Futures and send it on to another actor - it will already know each Future's identity and so you won't need to worry about tagging each message so that you can put them back in order later. Here's a simple example where each child returns a random Double, and you want to divide the first child's return value by the second child's return value (i.e. order matters).
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import akka.actor.{Props, Actor}
import akka.pattern.{ask, pipe}
import akka.util.Timeout
class A extends Actor {
val c1 = context.actorOf(Props[C], "C1")
val c2 = context.actorOf(Props[C], "C2")
// The ask operation involves creating an internal actor for handling
// this reply, which needs to have a timeout after which it is
// destroyed in order not to leak resources; see more below.
implicit val timeout = Timeout(5 seconds)
def receive = {
case _ => {
val f1 = c1 ? "anything" // Future[Any]
val f2 = c2 ? "anything" // Future[Any]
val result: Future[Double] = for {
d1 <- f1.mapTo[Double]
d2 <- f2.mapTo[Double]
} yield d1 / d2
}
}
class C extends Actor {
def receive = {
case _ => // random Double
}
}
Related
I am trying to split a big chunk of text into multiple paragraphs and process it concurrently by calling an external API.
An immutable list is updated each time the response comes from the API for the paragraph.
Once the paragraphs are processed and the list is updated, I would like to ask the Actor for the final status to be used in the next steps.
The problem with the below approach is that I would never know when all the paragraphs are processed.
I need to get back the targetStore once all the paragraphs are processed and the list is final.
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val source = Source.fromFile("input.txt")
val extDelegator = new ExtractionDelegator()
source.getLines().foreach(line => extDelegator.processParagraph(line))
extDelegator.getFinalResult()
}
case class Extract(uuid: UUID, text: String)
case class UpdateList(text: String)
case class DelegateLambda(text: String)
case class FinalResult()
class ExtractionDelegator {
val system = ActorSystem("ExtractionDelegator")
val extActor = system.actorOf(Props(classOf[ExtractorDelegateActor]).withDispatcher("fixed-thread-pool"))
implicit val executionContext = system.dispatchers.lookup("fixed-thread-pool")
def processParagraph(text: String) = {
extActor ! Extract(uuid, text)
}
def getFinalResult(): java.util.List[String] = {
implicit val timeout = Timeout(5 seconds)
val askActor = system.actorOf(Props(classOf[ExtractorDelegateActor]))
val future = askActor ? FinalResult()
val result = Await.result(future, timeout.duration).asInstanceOf[java.util.List[String]]
result
}
def shutdown(): Unit = {
system.terminate()
}
}
/* Extractor Delegator actor*/
class ExtractorDelegateActor extends Actor with ActorLogging {
var targetStore:scala.collection.immutable.List[String] = scala.collection.immutable.List.empty
def receive = {
case Extract(uuid, text) => {
context.actorOf(Props[ExtractProcessor].withDispatcher("fixed-thread-pool")) ! DelegateLambda(text)
}
case UpdateList(res) => {
targetStore = targetStore :+ res
}
case FinalResult() => {
val senderActor=sender()
senderActor ! targetStore
}
}
}
/* Aggregator actor*/
class ExtractProcessor extends Actor with ActorLogging {
def receive = {
case DelegateLambda(text) => {
val res =callLamdaService(text)
sender ! UpdateList(res)
}
}
def callLamdaService(text: String): String = {
//THis is where external API is called.
Thread.sleep(1000)
result
}
}
Not sure why you want to use actors here, most simple would be to
// because you call external service, you have back async response most probably
def callLamdaService(text: String): Future[String]
and to process your text you do
implicit val ec = scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global // use you execution context here
Future.sequence(source.getLines().map(callLamdaService)).map {results =>
// do what you want with results
}
If you still want to use actors, you can do it replacing callLamdaService to processParagraph which internally will do ask to worker actor, who returns result (so, signature for processParagraph will be def processParagraph(text: String): Future[String])
If you still want to start multiple tasks and then ask for result, then you just need to use context.become with receive(worker: Int), when you increase amount of workers for each Extract message and decrease amount of workers on each UpdateList message. You will also need to implement then delayed processing of FinalResult for the case of non-zero amount of processing workers.
I am doing my small research that implement Actor without Akka
I found one implementation of Actor in Scala. (How to implement actor model without Akka?)
It's very simple. Because I have not enough reputation to add the comment, so I create this question.
I wonder if I use Actor like below.
1/ How can I shutdown that actor from main thread?
2/ How can I add feature similar to Akka, like parent actor, kill request, and become method?
import scala.concurrent._
trait Actor[T] {
implicit val context = ExecutionContext.fromExecutor(java.util.concurrent.Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1))
def receive: T => Unit
def !(m: T) = Future { receive(m) }
}
This is my own example when trying to adapt the above code snippet
import scala.concurrent._
/**
* Created by hminle on 10/21/2016.
*/
trait Message
case class HelloMessage(hello: String) extends Message
case class GoodByeMessage(goodBye: String) extends Message
object State extends Enumeration {
type State = Value
val Waiting, Running, Terminating = Value
}
trait Actor[T] {
implicit val context = ExecutionContext.fromExecutor(java.util.concurrent.Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1))
private var state: State.State = State.Waiting
def handleMessage: T => Unit ={
if(state == State.Waiting) handleMessageWhenWaiting
else if(state == State.Running) handleMessageWhenRunning
else handleMessageWhenTerminating
}
def !(m: T) = Future {handleMessage(m)}
def handleMessageWhenWaiting: T => Unit
def handleMessageWhenRunning: T => Unit
def handleMessageWhenTerminating: T => Unit
def transitionTo(destinationState: State.State): Unit = {
this.state = destinationState
}
}
class Component1 extends Actor[Message]{
def handleMessageWhenRunning = {
case HelloMessage(hello) => {
println(Thread.currentThread().getName + hello)
}
case GoodByeMessage(goodBye) => {
println(Thread.currentThread().getName + goodBye)
transitionTo(State.Terminating)
}
}
def handleMessageWhenWaiting = {
case m => {
println(Thread.currentThread().getName + " I am waiting, I am not ready to run")
transitionTo(State.Running)
}
}
def handleMessageWhenTerminating = {
case m => {
println(Thread.currentThread().getName + " I am terminating, I cannot handle any message")
//need to shutdown here
}
}
}
class Component2(component1: Actor[Message]) extends Actor[Message]{
def handleMessageWhenRunning = {
case HelloMessage(hello) => {
println(Thread.currentThread().getName + hello)
component1 ! HelloMessage("hello 1")
}
case GoodByeMessage(goodBye) => {
println(Thread.currentThread().getName + goodBye)
component1 ! GoodByeMessage("goodbye 1")
transitionTo(State.Terminating)
}
}
def handleMessageWhenWaiting = {
case m => {
println(Thread.currentThread().getName + " I am waiting, I am not ready to run")
transitionTo(State.Running)
}
}
def handleMessageWhenTerminating = {
case m => {
println(Thread.currentThread().getName + " I am terminating, I cannot handle any message")
//need to shutdown here
}
}
}
object ActorExample extends App {
val a = new Component1
val b = new Component2(a)
b ! HelloMessage("hello World 2")
b ! HelloMessage("hello World 2, 2nd")
b ! GoodByeMessage("Good bye 2")
println(Thread.currentThread().getName)
}
You can look at Actor model implementation in scalazand take ideas from it, source code in scalaz actor is easier for insight than akka. You have freedom of choice about architecture: you can use mailboxes based on ConcurrentLinkedQueue like in Akka, use CAS for AtomicReffernce like in scalaz, in your case you use Future mechanism. IMO, you must write a context of your actor system, so solve first and second items in your question it's the variant of ActorContext:
val contextStack = new ThreadLocal[List[ActorContext]]
and shutdown can look like this:
1.
case Kill ⇒ throw new ActorKilledException("Kill")
case PoisonPill ⇒ self.stop()
2. For storing parent actor and similar task, you must store reference on them:
def parent: ActorRef
it's hard to say about advantages of every technique (CAS, mailboxes), it's possible variants to your research.
How would I test that a given behavior sends the messages I expect?
Say, three messages of some type, one after the other...
With regular actors (untyped) there was the TestProbe from regular Akka with methods like expectedMsg:
http://doc.akka.io/api/akka/current/index.html#akka.testkit.TestProbe
With akka-typed I'm scratching my head still. There is something called EffectfulActorContext, but I've no idea how to use that.
Example
Say I am writing a simple PingPong service, that given a number n replies with Pong(n) n-times. So:
-> Ping(2)
Pong(2)
Pong(2)
-> Ping(0)
# nothing
-> Ping(1)
Pong(1)
Here is how this behavior might look:
case class Ping(i: Int, replyTo: ActorRef[Pong])
case class Pong(i: Int)
val pingPong: Behavior[Ping] = {
Static {
case Ping(i, replyTo) => (0 until i.max(0)).map(_=> replyTo ! Pong(i))
}
}
My Hack
Now since I can't figure out how to make this work, the "hack" that I am doing right now is making the actor always reply with a list of responses. So the behavior is:
case class Ping(i: Int, replyTo: ActorRef[List[Pong]])
case class Pong(i: Int)
val pingPong: Behavior[Ping] = {
Static {
case Ping(i, replyTo) => replyTo ! (0 until i.max(0)).map(_=>Pong(i)).toList
}
}
Given this hacky change, the tester is easy to write:
package com.test
import akka.typed.AskPattern._
import akka.typed.ScalaDSL._
import akka.typed.{ActorRef, ActorSystem, Behavior, Props}
import akka.util.Timeout
import com.test.PingPong.{Ping, Pong}
import org.scalatest.{FlatSpec, Matchers}
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import scala.concurrent.{Await, Future}
object PingPongTester {
/* Expect that the given messages arrived in order */
def expectMsgs(i: Int, msgs: List[Pong]) = {
implicit val timeout: Timeout = 5 seconds
val pingPongBe: ActorSystem[Ping] = ActorSystem("pingPongTester", Props(PingPong.pingPong))
val futures: Future[List[Pong]] = pingPongBe ? (Ping(i, _))
for {
pongs <- futures
done <- {
for ((actual, expected) <- pongs.zip(msgs)) {
assert(actual == expected, s"Expected $expected, but received $actual")
}
assert(pongs.size == msgs.size, s"Expected ${msgs.size} messages, but received ${pongs.size}")
pingPongBe.terminate
}
} Await.ready(pingPongBe.whenTerminated, 5 seconds)
}
}
object PingPong {
case class Ping(i: Int, replyTo: ActorRef[List[Pong]])
case class Pong(i: Int)
val pingPong: Behavior[Ping] = {
Static {
case Ping(i, replyTo) => replyTo ! (0 until i.max(0)).map(_=>Pong(i)).toList
}
}
}
class MainSpec extends FlatSpec with Matchers {
"PingPong" should "reply with empty when Pinged with zero" in {
PingPongTester.expectMsgs(0, List.empty)
}
it should "reply once when Pinged with one" in {
PingPongTester.expectMsgs(1, List(Pong(1)))
}
it should "reply with empty when Pinged with negative" in {
PingPongTester.expectMsgs(-1, List.empty)
}
it should "reply with as many pongs as Ping requested" in {
PingPongTester.expectMsgs(5, List(Pong(5), Pong(5), Pong(5), Pong(5), Pong(5)))
}
}
I'm using EffectfulActorContext for testing my Akka typed actors and here is an untested example based on your question.
Note: I'm also using the guardianactor provided in the Akka-typed test cases.
class Test extends TypedSpec{
val system = ActorSystem("actor-system", Props(guardian()))
val ctx: EffectfulActorContext[Ping] = new EffectfulActorContext[Ping]("ping", Ping.props(), system)
//This will send the command to Ping Actor
ctx.run(Ping)
//This should get you the inbox of the Pong created inside the Ping actor.
val pongInbox = ctx.getInbox("pong")
assert(pongInbox.hasMessages)
val pongMessages = pongInbox.receiveAll()
pongMessages.size should be(1) //1 or whatever number of messages you expect
}
Edit (Some more info): Cases where I need to add a replyTo ActorRef in my messages I do the following:
case class Pong(replyTo: ActorRef[Response])
val responseInbox: SyncInbox[Response] = Inbox.sync[Response]("responseInbox")
Pong(responseInbox.ref)
My initial approach to testing was to extend Behavior class
class TestQueueBehavior[Protocol] extends Behavior[Protocol] {
val messages: BlockingQueue[Protocol] = new LinkedBlockingQueue[Protocol]()
val behavior: Protocol => Unit = {
(p: Protocol) => messages.put(p)
}
def pollMessage(timeout: FiniteDuration = 3.seconds): Protocol = {
messages.poll(timeout.toMillis, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)
}
override def management(ctx: ActorContext[Protocol], msg: Signal): Behavior[Protocol] = msg match {
case _ ⇒ ScalaDSL.Unhandled
}
override def message(ctx: ActorContext[Protocol], msg: Protocol): Behavior[Protocol] = msg match {
case p =>
behavior(p)
Same
}
}
then I could call behavior.pollMessage(2.seconds) shouldBe somethingToCompareTo which was very similar to using TestProbe.
Although I think EffectfulActorContext is the right way to go, unfortunately couldn't figure out how to properly use it.
I am trying to set a heartbeat over a network, i.e. having an actor send a message to the network on a fixed period of time. I would like to know if you have any better solution than the one I used below as I feel is pretty ugly, considering synchronisation contraints.
import akka.actor._
import akka.actor.Actor
import akka.actor.Props
import akka.actor.ScalaActorRef
import akka.pattern.gracefulStop
import akka.util._
import java.util.Calendar
import java.util.concurrent._
import java.text.SimpleDateFormat
import scala.Array._
import scala.concurrent._
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
sealed trait Message
case class Information() extends Message//does really need to be here?
case class StartMessage() extends Message
case class HeartbeatMessage() extends Message
case class StopMessage() extends Message
case class FrequencyChangeMessage(
f: Int
) extends Message
class Gps extends Actor {
override def preStart() {
val child = context.actorOf(Props(new Cadencer(500)), name = "cadencer")
}
def receive = {
case "beat" =>
//TODO
case _ =>
println("gps: wut?")
}
}
class Cadencer(p3riod: Int) extends Actor {
var period: Int = _
var stop: Boolean = _
override def preStart() {
period = p3riod
stop = false
context.system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(period milliseconds, self, HeartbeatMessage)
}
def receive = {
case StartMessage =>
stop = false
context.system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(period milliseconds, self, HeartbeatMessage)
case HeartbeatMessage =>
if (false == stop) {
context.system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(0 milliseconds, context.parent, "beat")
context.system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(period milliseconds, self, HeartbeatMessage)
}
case StopMessage =>
stop = true
case FrequencyChangeMessage(f) =>
period = f
case _ =>
println("wut?\n")
//throw exception
}
}
object main extends App {
val system = akka.actor.ActorSystem("mySystem")
val gps = system.actorOf(Props[Gps], name = "gps")
}
What I called cadencer here sends to a target actor and to itself an HeartbeatMessage ; to itself to transmit the order to resend one after a given amount of time, and thus going on with the process till a StopMessage (flipping the stop to true). Good?
Is even having a separated actor efficient rather than having it within a greater one?
Try this. It does not need a separate cadencer class.
class Gps extends Actor
{
var ticker : Cancellable = _
override def preStart()
{
println ("Gps prestart")
// val child = context.actorOf(Props(new Cadencer(500)), name = "cadencer")
ticker = context.system.scheduler.schedule (
500 milliseconds,
500 milliseconds,
context.self,
"beat")
}
def receive: PartialFunction[Any, Unit] =
{
case "beat" =>
println ("got a beat")
case "stop" =>
ticker.cancel()
case _ =>
println("gps: wut?")
}
}
object main extends App
{
val system = akka.actor.ActorSystem("mySystem")
val gps = system.actorOf(Props[Gps], name = "gps")
Thread.sleep (5000)
gps ! "stop"
println ("stop")
}
Actors are pretty lightweight, so it is no problem to have one actor for sending heartbeat messages (and it's preferable if you think of the Single Responsibility Principle).
Further remarks:
If you want to get rid of the period var, you can do the following (it's called hotswapping):
override def preStart() {
// ...
context.become(receive(p3riod))
}
def receive(period: Int) = {
// ...
case FrequencyChangeMessage(f) =>
context.become(receive(f))
// ...
}
Instead of using the stop var, you can stop the actor after getting the StopMessage.
If you need a heartbeat actor again, just start a new one.
Instead of scheduling with 0 milliseconds, you can send the message directly to the parent.
I can create actors with actorOf and look them with actorFor. I now want to get an actor by some id:String and if it doesnt exist, I want it to be created. Something like this:
def getRCActor(id: String):ActorRef = {
Logger.info("getting actor %s".format(id))
var a = system.actorFor(id)
if(a.isTerminated){
Logger.info("actor is terminated, creating new one")
return system.actorOf(Props[RC], id:String)
}else{
return a
}
}
But this doesn't work as isTerminated is always true and I get actor name 1 is not unique! exception for the second call. I guess I am using the wrong pattern here. Can someone help how to achieve this? I need
Create actors on demand
Lookup actors by id and if not present create them
Ability to destroy on, as I don't know if I will need it again
Should I use a Dispatcher or Router for this?
Solution
As proposed I use a concrete Supervisor that holds the available actors in a map. It can be asked to provide one of his children.
class RCSupervisor extends Actor {
implicit val timeout = Timeout(1 second)
var as = Map.empty[String, ActorRef]
def getRCActor(id: String) = as get id getOrElse {
val c = context actorOf Props[RC]
as += id -> c
context watch c
Logger.info("created actor")
c
}
def receive = {
case Find(id) => {
sender ! getRCActor(id)
}
case Terminated(ref) => {
Logger.info("actor terminated")
as = as filterNot { case (_, v) => v == ref }
}
}
}
His companion object
object RCSupervisor {
// this is specific to Playframework (Play's default actor system)
var supervisor = Akka.system.actorOf(Props[RCSupervisor])
implicit val timeout = Timeout(1 second)
def findA(id: String): ActorRef = {
val f = (supervisor ? Find(id))
Await.result(f, timeout.duration).asInstanceOf[ActorRef]
}
...
}
I've not been using akka for that long, but the creator of the actors is by default their supervisor. Hence the parent can listen for their termination;
var as = Map.empty[String, ActorRef]
def getRCActor(id: String) = as get id getOrElse {
val c = context actorOf Props[RC]
as += id -> c
context watch c
c
}
But obviously you need to watch for their Termination;
def receive = {
case Terminated(ref) => as = as filterNot { case (_, v) => v == ref }
Is that a solution? I must say I didn't completely understand what you meant by "terminated is always true => actor name 1 is not unique!"
Actors can only be created by their parent, and from your description I assume that you are trying to have the system create a non-toplevel actor, which will always fail. What you should do is to send a message to the parent saying “give me that child here”, then the parent can check whether that currently exists, is in good health, etc., possibly create a new one and then respond with an appropriate result message.
To reiterate this extremely important point: get-or-create can ONLY ever be done by the direct parent.
I based my solution to this problem on oxbow_lakes' code/suggestion, but instead of creating a simple collection of all the children actors I used a (bidirectional) map, which might be beneficial if the number of child actors is significant.
import play.api._
import akka.actor._
import scala.collection.mutable.Map
trait ResponsibleActor[K] extends Actor {
val keyActorRefMap: Map[K, ActorRef] = Map[K, ActorRef]()
val actorRefKeyMap: Map[ActorRef, K] = Map[ActorRef, K]()
def getOrCreateActor(key: K, props: => Props, name: => String): ActorRef = {
keyActorRefMap get key match {
case Some(ar) => ar
case None => {
val newRef: ActorRef = context.actorOf(props, name)
//newRef shouldn't be present in the map already (if the key is different)
actorRefKeyMap get newRef match{
case Some(x) => throw new Exception{}
case None =>
}
keyActorRefMap += Tuple2(key, newRef)
actorRefKeyMap += Tuple2(newRef, key)
newRef
}
}
}
def getOrCreateActorSimple(key: K, props: => Props): ActorRef = getOrCreateActor(key, props, key.toString)
/**
* method analogous to Actor's receive. Any subclasses should implement this method to handle all messages
* except for the Terminate(ref) message passed from children
*/
def responsibleReceive: Receive
def receive: Receive = {
case Terminated(ref) => {
//removing both key and actor ref from both maps
val pr: Option[Tuple2[K, ActorRef]] = for{
key <- actorRefKeyMap.get(ref)
reref <- keyActorRefMap.get(key)
} yield (key, reref)
pr match {
case None => //error
case Some((key, reref)) => {
actorRefKeyMap -= ref
keyActorRefMap -= key
}
}
}
case sth => responsibleReceive(sth)
}
}
To use this functionality you inherit from ResponsibleActor and implement responsibleReceive. Note: this code isn't yet thoroughly tested and might still have some issues. I ommited some error handling to improve readability.
Currently you can use Guice dependency injection with Akka, which is explained at http://www.lightbend.com/activator/template/activator-akka-scala-guice. You have to create an accompanying module for the actor. In its configure method you then need to create a named binding to the actor class and some properties. The properties could come from a configuration where, for example, a router is configured for the actor. You can also put the router configuration in there programmatically. Anywhere you need a reference to the actor you inject it with #Named("actorname"). The configured router will create an actor instance when needed.