Thomas Eizinger
Thomas Eizinger
> I've left some comments - apologies for the long wait, I've been busy as term is coming to a close so we are writing tests and handing in assignments...
> Good to merge once tests pass I think Needs your approval though :)
> > Couldn't we for example also use an atomic counter to tag each incoming message and sort the heap based on priority and message counter? > > In theory,...
> b) Accept the re-ordering of messages Expanding more on this: Usage of `split_receiver` makes message delivery asynchronous and I think by definition, timing of events doesn't matter in an...
If we would implement https://github.com/Restioson/xtra/issues/92#issuecomment-1162267933, then this issue would go away because the `BinaryHeap` could be replaced by a `VecDeque` per message priority.
@Restioson What is your latest position on this? I am gonna try and summarize our current knowledge: Separate handling of messages with default priority has the advantage that they will...
Friendly ping @Restioson :)
> In my old code, I kept a context which I used to stop a certain actor, thus triggering the remaining actors in the chain to get dropped. I can't...
One thing that would be cool to do on top of this is to remove the `Sender` and `Receiver` types so we have one less layer between the internal channel...
This is currently blocked by these PRs: - https://github.com/Restioson/xtra/pull/158 - https://github.com/Restioson/xtra/pull/159