Concurrency within actors using Futures - scala

I am wondering if there is a better way to handle async initialization of values within an Actor. Actors of course are thread safe when inside the actor, but using Futures throws a wrinkle in that (and you have to make sure you don't close over context or sender) Consider the following:
class ExampleActor(ref1: ActorRef, ref2: ActorRef) extends Actor {
implicit val ec = context.dispatcher
val promise1 = Promise[Int]
val promise2 = Promise[Int]
def receive = {
case Request1.Response(x) => promise1.success(x)
case Request2.Response(y) => promise2.success(y)
case CombinedResponse(x, y) => x + y
}
promise1.future foreach { x =>
promise2.future foreach { y =>
self ! CombinedResponse(x, y)
}
}
ref1 ! Request1
ref2 ! Request2
}
Is there a better/more idiomatic way of handling parallel requests like this?

You actually don't need futures to handle multi-part response:
var x: Option[Int] = None
var y: Option[Int] = None
def receive = {
case Request1.Response(x) => x = Some(x); checkParts
case Request2.Response(y) => y = Some(y); checkParts
}
def checkParts = for {
xx <- x
yy <- y
} parent ! xx + yy
By the way, you may use for-comprehension in the same way even with futures.
More functional way to manage actor's state:
case class Resp1(x: Int)
case class Resp2(y: Int)
case class State(x: Option[Int], y: Option[Int])
class Worker(parent: ActorRef) extends Actor {
def receive = process(State(None, None))
def process(s: State): Receive = edge(s) andThen { sn =>
context become process(sn)
for {
xx <- sn.x
yy <- sn.y
} parent ! xx + yy //action
}
def edge(s: State): PartialFunction[Any, State] = { //managing state
case Resp1(x) => s.copy(x = Some(x))
case Resp2(y) => s.copy(y = Some(y))
}
}
Reusing the actor instead of creating a future is better because promise.success actually does a non-managable side-effect by submitting task into an executor, so it's not a pure functional way. Actor's state is better, as side-effect inside an actor is always consistent with other actor's - they're applied step-by-step and only in response to some message. So you may see the actor just as fold on infinite collection; state and messages (also infinite) sent by actor may be seen just as fold's accumulator.
Talking about Akka, its actors have some kind of IoC features like automatical exception handling (through supervising), which isn't available inside future. In your case, you have to introduce an additional composite message to return into the actor's IoC-context. Adding any other action than self ! CombinedResponse(x, y) (which, for example, may be accidentally done by some other developer to implement some workaround) is unsafe.

Related

Is there a limit to how many Akka Streams can run at the same time?

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.

Akka Supervisor Strategy - Correct Use Case

I have been using Akka Supervisor Strategy to handle business logic exceptions.
Reading one of the most famous Scala blog series Neophyte, I found him giving a different purpose for what I have always been doing.
Example:
Let's say I have an HttpActor that should contact an external resource and in case it's down, I will throw an Exception, for now a ResourceUnavailableException.
In case my Supervisor catches that, I will call a Restart on my HttpActor, and in my HttpActor preRestart method, I will call do a schedulerOnce to retry that.
The actor:
class HttpActor extends Actor with ActorLogging {
implicit val system = context.system
override def preRestart(reason: Throwable, message: Option[Any]): Unit = {
log.info(s"Restarting Actor due: ${reason.getCause}")
message foreach { msg =>
context.system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(10.seconds, self, msg)
}
}
def receive = LoggingReceive {
case g: GetRequest =>
doRequest(http.doGet(g), g.httpManager.url, sender())
}
A Supervisor:
class HttpSupervisor extends Actor with ActorLogging with RouterHelper {
override val supervisorStrategy =
OneForOneStrategy(maxNrOfRetries = 5) {
case _: ResourceUnavailableException => Restart
case _: Exception => Escalate
}
var router = makeRouter[HttpActor](5)
def receive = LoggingReceive {
case g: GetRequest =>
router.route(g, sender())
case Terminated(a) =>
router = router.removeRoutee(a)
val r = context.actorOf(Props[HttpActor])
context watch r
router = router.addRoutee(r)
}
}
What's the point here?
In case my doRequest method throws the ResourceUnavailableException, the supervisor will get that and restart the actor, forcing it to resend the message after some time, according to the scheduler. The advantages I see is the fact I get for free the number of retries and a nice way to handle the exception itself.
Now looking at the blog, he shows a different approach in case you need a retry stuff, just sending messages like this:
def receive = {
case EspressoRequest =>
val receipt = register ? Transaction(Espresso)
receipt.map((EspressoCup(Filled), _)).recover {
case _: AskTimeoutException => ComebackLater
} pipeTo(sender)
case ClosingTime => context.system.shutdown()
}
Here in case of AskTimeoutException of the Future, he pipes the result as a ComebackLater object, which he will handle doing this:
case ComebackLater =>
log.info("grumble, grumble")
context.system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(300.millis) {
coffeeSource ! EspressoRequest
}
For me this is pretty much what you can do with the strategy supervisor, but in a manually way, with no built in number of retries logic.
So what is the best approach here and why? Is my concept of using akka supervisor strategy completely wrong?
You can use BackoffSupervisor:
Provided as a built-in pattern the akka.pattern.BackoffSupervisor implements the so-called exponential backoff supervision strategy, starting a child actor again when it fails, each time with a growing time delay between restarts.
val supervisor = BackoffSupervisor.props(
Backoff.onFailure(
childProps,
childName = "myEcho",
minBackoff = 3.seconds,
maxBackoff = 30.seconds,
randomFactor = 0.2 // adds 20% "noise" to vary the intervals slightly
).withAutoReset(10.seconds) // the child must send BackoffSupervisor.Reset to its parent
.withSupervisorStrategy(
OneForOneStrategy() {
case _: MyException => SupervisorStrategy.Restart
case _ => SupervisorStrategy.Escalate
}))

Akka: The order of responses

My demo app is simple. Here is an actor:
class CounterActor extends Actor {
#volatile private[this] var counter = 0
def receive: PartialFunction[Any, Unit] = {
case Count(id) ⇒ sender ! self ? Increment(id)
case Increment(id) ⇒ sender ! {
counter += 1
println(s"req_id=$id, counter=$counter")
counter
}
}
}
The main app:
sealed trait ActorMessage
case class Count(id: Int = 0) extends ActorMessage
case class Increment(id: Int) extends ActorMessage
object CountingApp extends App {
// Get incremented counter
val future0 = counter ? Count(1)
val future1 = counter ? Count(2)
val future2 = counter ? Count(3)
val future3 = counter ? Count(4)
val future4 = counter ? Count(5)
// Handle response
handleResponse(future0)
handleResponse(future1)
handleResponse(future2)
handleResponse(future3)
handleResponse(future4)
// Bye!
exit()
}
My handler:
def handleResponse(future: Future[Any]): Unit = {
future.onComplete {
case Success(f) => f.asInstanceOf[Future[Any]].onComplete {
case x => x match {
case Success(n) => println(s" -> $n")
case Failure(t) => println(s" -> ${t.getMessage}")
}
}
case Failure(t) => println(t.getMessage)
}
}
If I run the app I'll see the next output:
req_id=1, counter=1
req_id=2, counter=2
req_id=3, counter=3
req_id=4, counter=4
req_id=5, counter=5
-> 4
-> 1
-> 5
-> 3
-> 2
The order of handled responses is random. Is it normal behaviour? If no, how can I make it ordered?
PS
Do I need volatile var in the actor?
PS2
Also, I'm looking for some more convenient logic for handleResponse, because matching here is very ambiguous...
normal behavior?
Yes, this is absolutely normal behavior.
Your Actor is receiving the Count increments in the order you sent them but the Futures are being completed via submission to an underlying thread pool. It is that indeterminate ordering of Future-thread binding that is resulting in the out of order println executions.
how can I make it ordered?
If you want ordered execution of Futures then that is synonymous with synchronous programming, i.e. no concurrency at all.
do I need volatile?
The state of an Actor is only accessible within an Actor itself. That is why users of the Actor never get an actual Actor object, they only get an ActorRef, e.g. val actorRef = actorSystem actorOf Props[Actor] . This is partially to ensure that users of Actors never have the ability to change an Actor's state except through messaging. From the docs:
The good news is that Akka actors conceptually each have their own
light-weight thread, which is completely shielded from the rest of the
system. This means that instead of having to synchronize access using
locks you can just write your actor code without worrying about
concurrency at all.
Therefore, you don't need volatile.
more convenient logic
For more convenient logic I would recommend Agents, which are a kind of typed Actor with a simpler message framework. From the docs:
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import akka.agent.Agent
val agent = Agent(5)
val result = agent()
val result = agent.get
agent send 7
agent send (_ + 1)
Reads are synchronous but instantaneous. Writes are asynch. This means any time you do a read you don't have to worry about Futures because the internal value returns immediately. But definitely read the docs because there are more complicated tricks you can play with the queueing logic.
Real trouble in your approach is not asynchronous nature but overcomplicated logic.
And despite pretty answer from Ramon which I +1d, yes there is way to ensure order in some parts of akka. As we can read from the doc there is message ordering per sender–receiver pair guarantee.
It means that for each one-way channel of two actors there is guarantee, that messages will be delivered in order they been sent.
But there is no such guarantee for Future task accomplishment order which you are using to handle answers. And sending Future from ask as message to original sender is way strange.
Thing you can do:
redefine your Increment as
case class Increment(id: Int, requester: ActorRef) extends ActorMessage
so handler could know original requester
modify CounterActor's receive as
def receive: Receive = {
case Count(id) ⇒ self ! Increment(id, sender)
case Increment(id, snd) ⇒ snd ! {
counter += 1
println(s"req_id=$id, counter=$counter")
counter
}
}
simplify your handleResponse to
def handleResponse(future: Future[Any]): Unit = {
future.onComplete {
case Success(n: Int) => println(s" -> $n")
case Failure(t) => println(t.getMessage)
}
}
Now you can probably see that messages are received back in the same order.
I said probably because handling still occures in Future.onComplete so we need another actor to ensure the order.
Lets define additional message
case object StartCounting
And actor itself:
class SenderActor extends Actor {
val counter = system.actorOf(Props[CounterActor])
def receive: Actor.Receive = {
case n: Int => println(s" -> $n")
case StartCounting =>
counter ! Count(1)
counter ! Count(2)
counter ! Count(3)
counter ! Count(4)
counter ! Count(5)
}
}
In your main you can now just write
val sender = system.actorOf(Props[SenderActor])
sender ! StartCounting
And throw away that handleResponse method.
Now you definitely should see your message handling in the right order.
We've implemented whole logic without single ask, and that's good.
So magic rule is: leave handling responses to actors, get only final results from them via ask.
Note there is also forward method but this creates proxy actor so message ordering will be broken again.

akka Actor selection without race condition

I have a futures pool , and each future works with the same akka Actor System - some Actors in system should be global, some are used only in one future.
val longFutures = for (i <- 0 until 2 ) yield Future {
val p:Page = PhantomExecutor(isDebug=true)
Await.result( p.open("http://www.stackoverflow.com/") ,timeout = 10.seconds)
}
PhantomExecutor tryes to use one shared global actor (simple increment counter) using system.actorSelection
def selectActor[T <: Actor : ClassTag](system:ActorSystem,name:String) = {
val timeout = Timeout(0.1 seconds)
val myFutureStuff = system.actorSelection("akka://"+system.name+"/user/"+name)
val aid:ActorIdentity = Await.result(myFutureStuff.ask(Identify(1))(timeout).mapTo[ActorIdentity],
0.1 seconds)
aid.ref match {
case Some(cacher) =>
cacher
case None =>
system.actorOf(Props[T],name)
}
}
But in concurrent environment this approach does not work because of race condition.
I know only one solution for this problem - create global actors before splitting to futures. But this means that I can't encapsulate alot of hidden work from top library user.
You're right in that making sure the global actors are initialized first is the right approach. Can't you tie them to a companion object and reference them from there so you know they will only ever be initialized one time? If you really can't go with such an approach then you could try something like this to lookup or create the actor. It is similar to your code but it include logic to go back through the lookup/create logic (recursively) if the race condition is hit (only up to a max number of times):
def findOrCreateActor[T <: Actor : ClassTag](system:ActorSystem, name:String, maxAttempts:Int = 5):ActorRef = {
import system.dispatcher
val timeout = 0.1 seconds
def doFindOrCreate(depth:Int = 0):ActorRef = {
if (depth >= maxAttempts)
throw new RuntimeException(s"Can not create actor with name $name and reached max attempts of $maxAttempts")
val selection = system.actorSelection(s"/user/$name")
val fut = selection.resolveOne(timeout).map(Some(_)).recover{
case ex:ActorNotFound => None
}
val refOpt = Await.result(fut, timeout)
refOpt match {
case Some(ref) => ref
case None => util.Try(system.actorOf(Props[T],name)).getOrElse(doFindOrCreate(depth + 1))
}
}
doFindOrCreate()
}
Now the retry logic would fire for any exception when creating the actor, so you might want to further specify that (probably via another recover combinator) to only recurse when it gets an InvalidActorNameException, but you get the idea.
You may want to consider creating a manager actor that would take care about creating "counter" actors. This way you would ensure that counter actor creation requests are serialized.
object CounterManagerActor {
case class SelectActorRequest(name : String)
case class SelectActorResponse(name : String, actorRef : ActorRef)
}
class CounterManagerActor extends Actor {
def receive = {
case SelectActorRequest(name) => {
sender() ! SelectActorResponse(name, selectActor(name))
}
}
private def selectActor(name : String) = {
// a slightly modified version of the original selectActor() method
???
}
}

on demand actor get or else create

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.