Proposing a change to Launch Actor.vi: No more required caller input?

[drjdpowell]

I see what you mean.  Much of the information I move by messages has "notifier-like" requirements.  So getting updates 1 and 3 and dropping 2 is often fine (in fact desirable), but 1,3,2 is very bad.  Dropping 3 for any reason is also bad, so I wouldn't say that "lossy" communication is OK between actors, just that some types of "stale" messages can be dropped.

[Daklu]

AristosQueue wrote:

Information from multiple senders is not the issue.

Just pointing out that information from multiple senders is a very important issue that many QSM/QMH programmers get wrong, it's just not the issue being discussed here.

AristosQueue wrote:

I have yet to find any scenario where information *from the same sender* going to *the same recipient* has value when it arrives out of order.

I agree out of order messages doesn't add value to the information being transported, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there's no value in allowing messages to arrive out of order.  Messages arriving out of order is a side-effect of transporting messages through an environment that is unpredictable, such as the internet.  Out of order messages is an obstacle to overcome, not an ideal to strive for.

Fortunately, LV queues provide a very predictable environment for us to transport messages so we don't have to worry about it. 

[fabric]

Well, I still like "Launch Top-level Actor", but I'd happily settle for "Launch Root Actor".

"Callerless"? Awful.

[CaseyLamers1]

I agree with adding a "Launch Top Level Actor" method.

Frankly, though, anyone that can't understand the way it is now will find AF quite challenging.

Casey