Thanks!
Yes, nice idea. I will try it, mentioning the source.
And nice to see .actorOf. I'm using .actorOf(type, or .actorOf(actor.
Ummm... I was thinking of extending the Akka ideas to
typedref = system.typedActorOf where T is any classical type.
And then
typedref.Post(Action)
that is
type
Nice to see others playing with Akka like actors on .NET.
You can have a look at my take if you want:
https://github.com/rogeralsing/Pigeon
I set the actorcontext in a thread local when a given actor is active, this
gives me access to implicit sender.
//Roger
Den söndagen den 12:e januari 2014
Hi!
Sorry, AFAIK, implicit parameters are only for Scala, aren't they?
So, in Java you must supply explicitly the sender, am I right?
I'm too implementing Akka ideas in C# (only based on API and semantic,
using TDD), and today, I had to send the sender explicity in Pi example:
https://github.com
Ah, thanks :)
Den onsdagen den 1:e januari 2014 kl. 04:51:40 UTC+1 skrev √:
>
> Inside an Actor, the self-reference is implicit. Since the sender argument
> is implicit then implicit resolution takes place before a default value is
> applied.
>
> Cheers,
> V
> On Jan 1, 2014 10:48 AM, "Roger Als
Inside an Actor, the self-reference is implicit. Since the sender argument
is implicit then implicit resolution takes place before a default value is
applied.
Cheers,
V
On Jan 1, 2014 10:48 AM, "Roger Alsing" wrote:
> According to the documentation, tell with only a message arg will be
> called
According to the documentation, tell with only a message arg will be called
with "this" as sender:
other.tell(msg); // uses this actor as sender reference, reply
goes to us
Is this really the case?
When I look at the source for actorRef.scala , the default value used is
"actorRef
