Ambient-Oriented Programming

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
at:tutorial:actors

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
at:tutorial:actors [2007/04/06 20:50] – tvcutsemat:tutorial:actors [2007/04/07 17:36] – tvcutsem
Line 36: Line 36:
 ==== Asynchronous Message Sending ==== ==== Asynchronous Message Sending ====
  
-AmbientTalk, like E, lexically distinguishes between synchronous method invocation and asynchronous message sending. The former is expressed as ''o.m()'' while the latter is expressed as ''o<-m()''. Regular object references can carry both kinds of invocations. Synchronous method invocation behaves as in any typical object-oriented language. When an asynchronous message is sent to a local object ("local" meaning "hosted by the same actor"), the message is enqueued in the actor's own message queue and the method invocation will be executed at a later point in time.+AmbientTalk, like E, syntactically distinguishes between synchronous method invocation and asynchronous message sending. The former is expressed as ''o.m()'' while the latter is expressed as ''o<-m()''. Regular object references can carry both kinds of invocations. Synchronous method invocation behaves as in any typical object-oriented language. When an asynchronous message is sent to a local object ("local" meaning "hosted by the same actor"), the message is enqueued in the actor's own message queue and the method invocation will be executed at a later point in time.
  
 Far references, like the reference stored in the variable ''a'' above, only carry asynchronous message sends, and as such totally decouple objects hosted by different actors in time: objects can //never// be blocked waiting for an outstanding remote procedure call, they can only communicate by means of purely //asynchronous// message passing. This is a key property of AmbientTalk's concurrency model, and it is a crucial property in the context of [[distribution|distributed programming]]. Far references, like the reference stored in the variable ''a'' above, only carry asynchronous message sends, and as such totally decouple objects hosted by different actors in time: objects can //never// be blocked waiting for an outstanding remote procedure call, they can only communicate by means of purely //asynchronous// message passing. This is a key property of AmbientTalk's concurrency model, and it is a crucial property in the context of [[distribution|distributed programming]].
Line 50: Line 50:
  
 But what happens when the method to invoke asynchronously has parameters that need to be passed. How does parameter passing work in the context of inter-actor message sending? The rules are simple enough: But what happens when the method to invoke asynchronously has parameters that need to be passed. How does parameter passing work in the context of inter-actor message sending? The rules are simple enough:
-  - Objects and closures are always passed **by reference**+  - Objects and closures are always passed **by far reference**
   - Native data types like numbers, text, tables, ... are always passed **by copy**   - Native data types like numbers, text, tables, ... are always passed **by copy**
  
Line 89: Line 89:
 ==== Isolates ==== ==== Isolates ====
  
-The parameter passing semantics defined above rule out any possibility for an object to be passed by copy. The reason for this semantics is that objects encapsulate a lexical scope, and parameter passing an object by-copy would require the entire lexical scope to be parameter-[assed as well.+The parameter passing semantics defined above rule out any possibility for an object to be passed by copy. The reason for this semantics is that objects encapsulate a lexical scope, and parameter passing an object by copy would require the entire lexical scope to be parameter-passed as well.
  
 To enable objects to be passed by copy between actors, a special type of objects is introduced. These objects are called **isolates** because they are //isolated// from their lexical scope. Continuing our previous example, imagine we want our calculator to work with complex numbers, which are typically objects that one would want to pass by copy. We can define complex numbers as isolate objects as follows: To enable objects to be passed by copy between actors, a special type of objects is introduced. These objects are called **isolates** because they are //isolated// from their lexical scope. Continuing our previous example, imagine we want our calculator to work with complex numbers, which are typically objects that one would want to pass by copy. We can define complex numbers as isolate objects as follows:
Line 169: Line 169:
 === The Concept === === The Concept ===
  
-The most well-known language feature to reconcile return values with asynchronous message sends is the notion of a //future//. Futures are objects that represent return values that may not yet have been computed. Once the asynchronously invoked method has completed, the future is replaced with the actual return value, and objects that referred to the future transparently refer to the return value.+The most well-known language feature to reconcile return values with asynchronous message sends is the notion of a [[Wp>Future_(programming)|future]]. Futures are objects that represent return values that may not yet have been computed. Once the asynchronously invoked method has completed, the future is replaced with the actual return value, and objects that referred to the future transparently refer to the return value.
  
 Using futures, it is possible to re-implement the previous example of requesting our calculator actor to add two numbers as follows: Using futures, it is possible to re-implement the previous example of requesting our calculator actor to add two numbers as follows:
at/tutorial/actors.txt · Last modified: 2020/02/05 21:26 by elisag