Hi,
Assuming I have an actor which hold a map M
And I will possibly do:
1, send message A to the actor
2. send message B to the actor
When receiving messages, A will possibly be executed in thread 1 and B
will possibly be executed in thread 2.
Although A is triggered earlier than B ( sequenc
Actors are thread safe inside them "by definition".
The actor has one mailbox and processes the messages one by one from it.
We guarantee that fields are properly visible, even if the actor jumps
around threads - no need for CHM in the actor
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Leon Ma wrote:
> Hi,
By "processes the messages one by one", do you mean My message B has to be
wait until message A gets processed?
They can't be executed in parallel?
Thanks
Leon
在 2014年5月14日星期三UTC-7下午10时34分45秒，Konrad Malawski写道：
>
> Actors are thread safe inside them "by definition".
> The actor has one mailb
No. This is inherent to how the actor model is defined. Thanks to this
youre safe from races inside the actor.
--
Konrad 'ktoso' Malawski
On 15 May 2014 07:43, "Leon Ma" wrote:
> By "processes the messages one by one", do you mean My message B has to be
> wait until message A gets processed?
>
If you need to enable parallel processing you could create a new child
actor for each job and let the child do the actual work and then send the
result back to the parent. That way you only need to do the child actor
creation and reply handling in the parent actor, and thus keep the serial
processi
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Leon Ma wrote:
> By "processes the messages one by one", do you mean My message B has to be
> wait until message A gets processed?
>
> They can't be executed in parallel?
>
It's worth emphasizing -- the fact that they can't be executed in parallel
is the entire *
