If the read and the write are separate messages, i.e. the computation of the modified value happens sender-side, as in the parent example, then I don’t see how a serializing queue prevents the race condition, for two concurrent senders (clients). For that you need transactions, exactly like a database.

▲ hackyhacky 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not how you would implement mutating messages in an actor system. Instead you could do either of these:

* Have an "increment" message that adds n to the current value and returns the old value.

* Have separate "read" and "write" messages, where the "write" message is parameterized by a timestamp returned by the "read" message. If the owner detects that the timestamp sent by the write is older than the most recent timestamp, it's rejected.

Because messages are handled serially, it's easy and safe to create messages that behave sanely event without explicit locks.

▲

mrkeen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You wouldn't implement the "plus 2" program in an actor system this way, because of race conditions.

Same as you wouldn't implement the "plus 2" program in an OO, functional, or this way, because of race conditions.

Either way, it's up to programmer discipline.

	▲	hackyhacky 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You wouldn't implement the "plus 2" program in an actor system this way, because of race conditions. Can you explain how a serially-executed "increment" message in an actor system, as I've described above, would cause a race condition? In an OOP system you could do the same, you'd just have to build the thread-safe message queue yourself. In actor languages it's built in. There are cases where you can get race conditions in actor languages, but I'm pretty sure this isn't one.

▲ mrkeen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is correct, but databases only help to the extent that the whole world is happy to live in your database.

As soon as you have customers (who interact via REST), or partner payment systems (e.g. stripe) you're back to:

  Two customers do a GET.  This gets dispatched to the DB, wrapped in a nice transaction, the transaction ends, the customers get their result.

  The two customers then do a POST to set a new value.  Also wrapped in a transaction.

Race condition with more steps.

	▲	hackyhacky an hour ago \| parent [-]
		As I pointed out above, that's not the API that would be exposed in an actor model. See in particular the timestamp-based update condition, if you're principally concerned with end-user-caused races. Less relevant, but message queues in Erlang and related languages are typically in-memory, no DB transaction required.

▲ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]