(if you really need, you may fabricate a message that persistent actor sends to its journal when it's going to persist an event: see example)
So you directly communicate with Journal rather than making a persitentactor do one message at a time?
I.e. pool a set of messages and then batch them to journal to persist
I'm using this when I want to have compatibility with akka.persistence protocol without actually creating thousands of actors
for persisting multiple events at once you may just use PersistAll method
Your first point is my use case for the import case. Looks very interesting. I need to check that out. Thanks :)
Hello. Is it possible to intercept ICanTell.Tell()? I'd like to add some logging. Or would this be better done by monitoring the mailbox or
or some other means.
Basically, I want to be able to visualise the messages flying around. I'd like to generate a sequence diagram or similar. AroundReceive works for the receiving side, but not the sending side.
@optiks on the sending side...
unfortunately I don't think you can intercept the .Tell operation without using something like PostSharp to do IL weaving
since that's built into objects like all of the IActorRef implementations
@Horusiath Well I'd Actor A to start first and it starts 4 actors at different moments. And once they're not useful any more, I'd like to dispose of them
@Aaronontheweb Thanks. I had a poke around and came to the same conclusion. It would be a nice extensibility point :)
Hacky workaround is to use an extension method. i.e. Duplicate ActorRefImplicitSenderExtensions. It just needs to be defined in each project due to scoping.
@to11mtm yeah, we're going to bring that back into the picture
I'd be up for releasing that now
seen a couple of interesting ideas
one is the aftorref caching
the other is lazily creating the remote actor ref
for the sender
if it's not needed
@schepersk dude, I'm so sorry - looks like I totally missed your messages over the past week
do you still need help with those cluster issues?
@Kavignon with standard akka.fsharp you can use mailbox.Context.Child(name) to try to get the child from the parent by name. If such actor didn't exist, it will return ActorsRefs.Nobody as a reference.
seems weird to me that now that we have TeamCity formatting for NBench all of our performance specifications suddenly stop being racy again
the concurrent programming version of the observer effect :p
@aaronontheweb is that just on the server or building locally as well
@SeanFarrow building locally it's worked fine for the most part. We had issues on the server where the time-sensitive Akka.Streams NBench specs would fail
5ms deadlines on some of them
there we go
we're going to be adding this to the Multi node test runner as well
that'll allow TeamCity's "flaky tests" report to help signal to us where we need to go spend some time hardening stuff
the benchmarking stuff is a bit harder to fix mostly because benchmarking concurrent code is a dark art
we do things like toggle the processor priority to help it get scheduled ahead of everything else, but we're still at the mercy of the OS when it comes to that
in the grand scheme of things, relativistic benchmarking is the way to solve that
build up a history of every benchmark run for the same hardware profile and judge any new benchmark relative to the old ones
and use an estimated weighted moving average or some sort of threshold system to determine if a new change is seriously out of line or not
but that requires storing the state somewhere and adding a bunch of fun network calls to the assertion engine NBench uses
and better hardware finger printing
next thing happening to NBench is .NET Core support; after we're tied to the constraints of what .NET Core does (i.e. no more performance counters,) we can come up with a strategy that will work X-plat