pekko/akka-docs/general/actor-systems.rst

.. _actor-systems:

Actor Systems
=============

Actors are objects which encapsulate state and behavior, they communicate
exclusively by exchanging messages which are placed into the recipient’s
mailbox. In a sense, actors are the most stringent form of object-oriented
programming, but it serves better to view them as persons: while modeling a
solution with actors, envision a group of people and assign sub-tasks to them,
arrange their functions into an organizational structure and think about how to
escalate failure (all with the benefit of not actually dealing with people,
which means that we need not concern ourselves with their emotional state or
moral issues). The result can then serve as a mental scaffolding for building
the software implementation.

Hierarchical Structure
----------------------

Like in an economic organization, actors naturally form hierarchies. One actor,
which is to oversee a certain function in the program might want to split up
its task into smaller, more manageable pieces. For this purpose it starts child
actors which it supervises. While the details of supervision are explained
:ref:`here <supervision>`, we shall concentrate on the underlying concepts in
this section. The only prerequisite is to know that each actor has exactly one
supervisor, which is the actor that created it.

The quintessential feature of actor systems is that tasks are split up and
delegated until they become small enough to be handled in one piece. In doing
so, not only is the task itself clearly structured, but the resulting actors
can be reasoned about in terms of which messages they should process, how they
should react normally and how failure should be handled. If one actor does not
have the means for dealing with a certain situation, it sends a corresponding
failure message to its supervisor, asking for help. The recursive structure
then allows to handle failure at the right level.

Compare this to layered software design which easily devolves into defensive
programming with the aim of not leaking any failure out: if the problem is
communicated to the right person, a better solution can be found than if
trying to keep everything “under the carpet”.

Now, the difficulty in designing such a system is how to decide who should
supervise what. There is of course no single best solution, but there are a few
guidelines which might be helpful:

 - If one actor manages the work another actor is doing, e.g. by passing on
   sub-tasks, then the manager should supervise the child. The reason is that
   the manager knows which kind of failures are expected and how to handle
   them.

 - If one actor carries very important data (i.e. its state shall not be lost
   if avoidable), this actor should source out any possibly dangerous sub-tasks
   to children it supervises and handle failures of these children as
   appropriate. Depending on the nature of the requests, it may be best to
   create a new child for each request, which simplifies state management for
   collecting the replies. This is known as the “Error Kernel Pattern” from
   Erlang.

 - If one actor depends on another actor for carrying out its duty, it should
   watch that other actor’s liveness and act upon receiving a termination
   notice. This is different from supervision, as the watching party has no
   influence on the supervisor strategy, and it should be noted that a
   functional dependency alone is not a criterion for deciding where to place a
   certain child actor in the hierarchy.

There are of course always exceptions to these rules, but no matter whether you
follow the rules or break them, you should always have a reason.

Configuration Container
-----------------------

The actor system as a collaborating ensemble of actors is the natural unit for
managing shared facilities like scheduling services, configuration, logging,
etc. Several actor systems with different configuration may co-exist within the
same JVM without problems, there is no global shared state within Akka itself.
Couple this with the transparent communication between actor systems—within one
node or across a network connection—to see that actor systems themselves can be
used as building blocks in a functional hierarchy.

Actor Best Practices
--------------------

#. Actors should be like nice co-workers: do their job efficiently without
   bothering everyone else needlessly and avoid hogging resources. Translated
   to programming this means to process events and generate responses (or more
   requests) in an event-driven manner. Actors should not block (i.e. passively
   wait while occupying a Thread) on some external entity, which might be a
   lock, a network socket, etc. The blocking operations should be done in some
   special-cased thread which sends messages to the actors which shall act on
   them.

#. Do not pass mutable objects between actors. In order to ensure that, prefer
   immutable messages. If the encapsulation of actors is broken by exposing
   their mutable state to the outside, you are back in normal Java concurrency
   land with all the drawbacks.

#. Actors are made to be containers for behavior and state, embracing this
   means to not routinely send behavior within messages (which may be tempting
   using Scala closures). One of the risks is to accidentally share mutable
   state between actors, and this violation of the actor model unfortunately
   breaks all the properties which make programming in actors such a nice
   experience.

#. Top-level actors are the innermost part of your Error Kernel, so create them
   sparingly and prefer truly hierarchical systems. This has benefits wrt.
   fault-handling (both considering the granularity of configuration and the
   performance) and it also reduces the number of blocking calls made, since
   the creation of top-level actors involves synchronous messaging.

What you should not concern yourself with
-----------------------------------------

An actor system manages the resources it is configured to use in order to run
the actors which it contains. There may be millions of actors within one such
system, after all the mantra is to view them as abundant and they weigh in at
an overhead of only roughly 300 bytes per instance. Naturally, the exact order
in which messages are processed in large systems is not controllable by the
application author, but this is also not intended. Take a step back and relax
while Akka does the heavy lifting under the hood.