Collections as behavior

This tutorial covers use of ordinary Smalltalk objects not inheriting from ActorBehavior as behavior objects for Actor process instances. It focuses primarily on the problems that might arise in such situations.

An OrderedCollection actor

Let’s experiment with using an OrderedCollection as behavior for an Actor.

a := Actor bootProxy: [ OrderedCollection new ].

We are now able to send messages to our actor, as usual:

a add: 3.
a add: 4.

If we explore our actor using “explore it” on a in our workspace, we see the state of the actor is as follows:

As expected, we see an OrderedCollection(3 4) as the behavior object.

Interactions with actors default to asynchronous:

a sum. "a Promise"

But we can wait for them to complete as usual if we like:

a sum wait. "7"

However, a surprise is in store for us if we try to ask for the size of the OrderedCollection.

a size.

What is happening here is that ActorProxy inherits from Object, which implements size. Instead of forwarding our request to the Actor (and hence to its behavior), the ActorProxy tried to answer size itself.

This is one of the reasons for the different interaction patterns that ActorProxy objects offer. Use of sync here allows us to ensure the request is forwarded to the Actor correctly.

a sync size wait. "2"

Other methods that trigger this class of difficulty include at: and at:put:, along with all the other methods defined on class Object.

Another surprise lies in wait when it comes to exceptions signaled by an object as part of its normal interface.

Running removeFirst twice works just fine. The third request will signal an empty collection error:

a removeFirst wait. "3"
a removeFirst wait. "4"
a removeFirst wait. "(results in the following window)"

Clicking on “Debug” allows us to find out what went wrong. In the lower-left panel on the debugger, when the topmost (ActorPromise(Promise)>>wait) context is selected, is an error variable. Selecting that variable shows the underlying error in the adjacent panel:

.png)

The main takeaway from this is that, since the behaviour object of the actor signaled an uncaught exception, the entire actor has been terminated and is no longer able to reply to requests.

If we ask for its sum again, we’re notified that the actor has terminated, with the “collection is empty” exception that caused it to stop.

At this point, there is no recovery; termination of an actor is final.

A Dictionary actor

Similarly, we can try using a Dictionary as an actor’s behavior object.

d := Actor bootProxy: [ Dictionary new ].
d async at: 1 put: 2. "nil"
d async at: 3 put: 4. "nil"

As before, ordinary methods work just fine.

To avoid the problems with exceptions as part of an object’s normal interface, we can avoid those parts of the interface, and instead use alternatives that allow us to execute specific pieces of code when otherwise an exception would be signalled:

(d at: 1 ifAbsent: [ Actor callerError: 'No such key' ]) wait. "2"
(d at: 11 ifAbsent: [ Actor callerError: 'No such key' ]) wait. "an error"
(d removeKey: 1 ifAbsent: [ Actor callerError: 'No such key' ]) wait. "works once..."
(d removeKey: 1 ifAbsent: [ Actor callerError: 'No such key' ]) wait. "...but not twice."

By using Actor class >> #callerError:, we avoid having an uncaught exception be thrown. Instead, only the promise associated with the request is rejected, causing a BrokenPromise exception in the caller, but leaving the Dictionary actor itself unharmed. Sending future requests to the dictionary actor will continue to work.

Our strategy of using methods like at:ifAbsent: instead of at:, and removeKey:ifAbsent: instead of removeKey:, has allowed us to avoid killing the whole actor, but at the cost of having the ifAbsent: block execute in the wrong context. That is, if it runs, it will run in a context where self is the Dictionary, and Actor current and Actor me denote the actor that the client knows as d.