On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Christopher Poile <cpo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hello Akkers,
> Given a traditional OO design that does not use actors, is it possible to
> create an object that subscribes to certain messages and is guaranteed to
> process these messages by itself, sequentially, and in its own thread?
> Without using synchronize. This would eliminate race conditions and the
> memory barrier problem, if I'm understanding concurrency.
How would you communicate with it w/o barriers?
> I know I'm kind of asking if I can create an actor without using the actor
> system. But suppose this object controls a number of UI elements, and this
> system has no EventBus like you would expect in Swing and MacOsX. Using
> HawtDispatch I could use a serial queue, but it seems that Akka replaced
> HawtDispatch and I haven't been able to find an Akka equivalent to serial
Why don't you want an ActorSystem? How will you handle failures?
> Alternatively, can I just mixim actor traits into an existing OO system
> (which is programmed in Scala) and get this for free from the Akka actor
No, I don't believe that would be desirable. Actors is async
fire.and-forget, JVM OO is about sync req-resp.
Unfortunately you haven't really stated which problem you're trying to
solve, so I am pretty hindered in providing any alternate solutions.
What was the reason as not to try TypedActors that run on a
Akka Tech Lead
Typesafe <http://www.typesafe.com/> - The software stack for applications