The reason why I would like to create a materializer per stream is
exception handling. Currently it seems not to be intended to have a single
exception handler per stream.
The Supervision.Decider is something like an exception handler which is
bound to the materializer. But when handling except
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:18 PM, wrote:
> I could not find anything about the costs for creating an
> ActorMaterializer.
> Is it a cheap operation so I can have individual materializers per stream
> or is it more heavy weight so I should share them between streams?
>
Why would you like to creat
That is very much true. So it shutdowns the supervisor actor that manages.
But you need to make sure that all of the streams are completed when you
shutdown the materializer.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Viktor Klang wrote:
> It needs to be shut down though?
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM
Hi Leslie,
currently materializer is quite lightweight. You do not need to care about
performance implications when creating a new one. However in the future
this could change where materializer could even become stateful for quicker
materialization.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:18 PM, wrote:
> I
I could not find anything about the costs for creating an
ActorMaterializer.
Is it a cheap operation so I can have individual materializers per stream
or is it more heavy weight so I should share them between streams?
Kind Regards,
Leslie Leder
--
>> Read the docs: http://akka.i
