On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Patrik Nordwall
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:42 AM, wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 3:16:57 PM UTC-7, Guido Medina wrote:
>>>
>>> By induction you can conclude that messages order is
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:42 AM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 3:16:57 PM UTC-7, Guido Medina wrote:
>>
>> By induction you can conclude that messages order is guaranteed when
>> sending sequentially (in the same thread) by using the following assertions:
>>
>>
On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 3:16:57 PM UTC-7, Guido Medina wrote:
>
> By induction you can conclude that messages order is guaranteed when
> sending sequentially (in the same thread) by using the following assertions:
>
>- Messages sent to any local actor go immediately to their
By induction you can conclude that messages order is guaranteed when
sending sequentially (in the same thread) by using the following assertions:
- Messages sent to any local actor go immediately to their destination
inbox hence order is preserved because of sequential execution - JMM
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Patrik Nordwall
wrote:
> The documentation is talking about actor pairs, because you normally send
> messages from an actor. In this example you don't send them from an actor,
> but that doesn't matter. The tell methods are called in a
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, wrote:
> Sorry for not understanding yet. The message ordering link cited earlier
> seems to me to be suggesting that ultimately programs in general can only
> have reliable message passing by having business logic that deals with it.
> The
Sorry for not understanding yet. The message ordering link cited earlier
seems to me to be suggesting that ultimately programs in general can only
have reliable message passing by having business logic that deals with it.
The section from that link says:
*for a given pair of actors, messages
I think the line that might cause confusion here is
inbox.send(greeter, new Greet());
The inbox can be seen as a "mediator" and therefore perceived as it might
not preserve ordering. For this reason I would prefer to write it as:
greeter.tell(new Greet(), inbox.getRef());
That is exactly how
In the introduction chapter of Akka this is explained in details, how Akka
takes care of it,
I suggest you go there to learn the exact details:
http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.10/general/message-delivery-reliability.html#Discussion__Message_Ordering
HTH,
Guido.
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Hi,
In the sample both messages are sent from the same context to the same
receiver, so they will be received in-order.
Tal
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:12:32 PM UTC+3, que...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The order that they are received would be the critical thing, I would
> think. So, is the
The order that they are received would be the critical thing, I would
think. So, is the example not dealing with the possibility that the
messages could be received out of order? Or, is this somehow taken care of?
Kendall
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 2:40:34 AM UTC-7, Tal Pressman wrote:
>
Hi,
Message ordering is preserved between a sender-receiver pair. However, this
refers to the actual actual actor sending the message, regardless of the
ActorRef passed as the sender reference.
In the example above, both messages are being sent from the same context,
and therefor should be
12 matches
Mail list logo