On Tuesday, 6 May 2014 15:18:29 UTC+8, Martin Krasser wrote: > > The availability of (new) events in the journal is also an event. Whether > a view is actively notified about their availability (= push) or if the > view tries to find out itself (= pull) is rather a technical detail. A > pull-based view even allows to decouple a processor from its view(s) in the > dimension of lifetime. Why do you see this in conflict with being reactive? >
Reactive I take to mean push, the events are driving action in the system, from GUI to GUI. With the current way Views work I don't see them as supporting a reactive system (not a criticism), but as you mentioned this is a technical detail that may change in a later version of Akka Persistence. I am confused though, about how the whole "eventual consistency" of CQRS fits in with reactive systems, it seems like a sort of lazy reactivity, i.e. we'll get around to reacting to the event sometime soon ;-) Of course, CQRS is proving to me that eventual consistency is fine for most (if not nearly all) situations but I wouldn't call it reactive (personally), and I would like to know what to do when we really need reactivity. With regards to Akka Persistence this may mean the Views (or another read model maintained by the Views) having some sort of open connection to the client to forward on read model events (if there are such things?). Thanks Martin. Cheers, Ashley. -- >>>>>>>>>> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/ >>>>>>>>>> Check the FAQ: >>>>>>>>>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html >>>>>>>>>> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Akka User List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/akka-user. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
