[erlang-questions] Massive Numbers of Actors vs. Massive Numbers of Objects vs. ????
Tue Feb 28 20:19:14 CET 2012
Interesting, though I'm not quite sure the model is directly
applicable. It looks like you're modeling buyers/sellers, in a market,
as transactional mealy machines. I'm thinking more that the actual
transactions would be actors/objects - and looking for an environment
that could handle huge numbers of such entities. (Or am I misreading
Paul Oliver wrote:
> Hi Miles,
> Perhaps something like transactional mealy machines?
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Miles Fidelman
> <mfidelman@REDACTED <mailto:mfidelman@REDACTED>> wrote:
> I'm trying to get a handle on core technology for an application
> that's going to involve massive numbers of entities - where the
> entities want to have characteristics that draw from both the
> object and actor models.
> Think of something like massive numbers of stored email messages,
> where each message is addressable, can respond to events, and in
> some cases can initiate events - for example, on receiving an
> email message, a reader can fill in a form, and have that update
> every copy of the message spread across dozens (or hundreds, or
> thousands) of mailboxes/folders distributed across the Internet.
> Or where an email message, stored in some folder, can wake up and
> send a reminder.
> One sort of wants to blend characteristics of:
> - messages (small, static, easy to store huge numbers, easy to
> move around)
> - objects (data and methods bound together, inheritance, ...)
> - actors (massive concurrency, active)
> The topic has come up before, in discussions of active objects,
> reactive objects, concurrent objects, etc. - I'm wondering what
> the current state of the art and practice look like.
> I'm thinking that Erlang might be nice operating environment for
> such a beast, but wonder at what point one hits limits in the
> numbers of actors floating around. I'm also wondering what other
> environments might blend these characteristics.
> Thoughts? Comments?
> Miles Fidelman
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
More information about the erlang-questions