This looks interesting. Future.collect. Learn something new every day.
http://www.superloopy.io/articles/2013/spray-routing-error-handling.html
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Richard Rodseth wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying. I was using the version of complete I showed in
> order to have control
Thanks for clarifying. I was using the version of complete I showed in
order to have control over the status code etc, but there are no doubt
other ways to do that in Spray.
My takeaway is that I shouldn't be too hasty about standardizing on
per-request actors.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Akk
Hi Richard,
No, I mean the other complete() method that you call from the Success and
Failure paths of the onComplete block. Why not just use
complete(result.transform(...))?
-Endre
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Richard Rodseth wrote:
> Hi Endre
>
> Yes, the one I showed (onComplete()) *is*
Hi Endre
Yes, the one I showed (onComplete()) *is* taking a future. The result of my
ask is a Future[Long].
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Akka Team wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
>
>> The route looks something like this:
>>
>> post {
>>
>> val result = (xyzService ?
>> XYZService.Creat
Hi Richard,
> The route looks something like this:
>
> post {
>
> val result = (xyzService ?
> XYZService.CreateXYZ(xyzAttributes)).mapTo[Long]
>
> onComplete(result) {
>
> case Success(value) => complete(s"The result was $value")
>
> case Failure(ex) => complete(
Suppose I have an actor hierarchy like this:
SprayAPIRoutingActor
XYZServiceActor
..DbActor
..OtherActor1
..OtherActor2
The DbActor wraps one or more blocking DAOs and has its own dispatcher to
isolate the blocking.
The router actor has access to the root service actor.
I have implemented one ro
