Thanks. And I just realized that my question was kinda dumb. Of course they
are compatible, since you would send a message to an Akka actor using that
actor's sending methods, and vice versa for Lift Actors. Sorry ...

Ethan

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]>wrote:

> @Ethan - look here http://doc.akkasource.org/lift-integration
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > Question: Are Lift actors and Akka actors compatible? So, for example,
> could
> > we do this incrementally, replacing the Distributor with Akka actors
> first
> > and then working out to the other actors?
> >
> > Ethan
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> For a while I've been thinking about integrating Akka
> >> (http://akkasource.org/) into ESME. Akka is a library for concurrency,
> >> fault-tolerance and remoting and actors are one of its most important
> >> components. The advantages of using Akka are:
> >>
> >> 1. Easy remoting- it's trivial to make an actor remote
> >> (http://doc.akkasource.org/remote-actors-java). This might help with
> >> federation/clustering in the future.
> >> 2. Akka has nice Camel integration (http://doc.akkasource.org/camel).
> >> Camel has a lot of endpoint components, which are conspicuously
> >> similar in intent to our actions:
> >> (http://camel.apache.org/components.html). If we replace our actions
> >> with Camel components, we will have a ready DSL for dozens of actions
> >> at little extra effort. For instance, XMPP support is supposed to
> >> become trivial (at least at first glance).
> >>
> >> The upside is that it should be fairly ealy to replace Lift actors
> >> with Akka actors where (and if) needed. The downside is having another
> >> library dependency- but we also won't need to implement and maintain
> >> all the different action types.
> >>
> >> What do you think? I will let you know how this idea matures and how
> >> my research goes.
> >> Vassil
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to