Goblins is currently pre-alpha. The semantics can and will change. Experimenting with the library is encouraged and welcome, but please don’t use it for production-oriented code yet. Please especially be aware of this known bug.
Goblins is a lightweight actor model library for Racket. It doesn’t require a special #lang, though it may be mixed specialized #langs.
It is inspired by such object capability actor languages as the E, bringing strong security mixed with support for highly distributed computing. (More accurately, support for highly distributed computing coming soon.)
Goblins is designed as the foundational layer for the Spritely project but is designed to be fairly general so it can be used outside of it as well. This work is funded by people like you, so if you consider it valuable, please consider supporting this work.
First we’ll need to import Goblins, like so:
> (require goblins)
Spawning an actor in goblins should look fairly familiar. Here’s a simple "greeter" actor.
> (define greeter (spawn (lambda (name) (format "Hello, ~a!" name))))
Calling our greeter looks fairly similar to calling a function. Here’s the easy way to do it:
> (<<- greeter "Samantha")
In fact, that looks a little too similar to calling a function. At this point you may be wondering, why the extra hassle of this <<- thing? Why not just define a function and call it normally?
There are really two answers to that question. One answer is that actors are asynchronous and communicate via message passing. Each actor handles one incoming message at a time and in response may change its own behavior/state, spawn other actors, or send messages to other actors it holds references to. In the CAP theorem of "Consistent, Available, Partition-tolerant, pick two", Goblins chooses Available and Partition-tolerant. (Eventual consistency may be modeled on a higher layer of abstraction, but is not provided by Goblins itself.)
Another answer is that our actors can, in theory, live anywhere... on another server, on the same machine in another process, etc etc. For example, our greeter is actually an address to an actor somewhere:
In the future you’ll have to call an explicit method to see the printed address of an actor reference. As we can see, this is a local actor reference. Actors live in a "hive", usually with some other actors, and take "turns" handling messages one at a time, kind of like turns in a board game. However, there may be other hives out there, and our actors can still interact with them. Actors in the same hive are both local, whereas actors in differing hives have remote references. This means that programmers can implement code with actors interacting with each other without much care for where the actors live. Remote actor interactions coming in probably Goblins v0.2 In the abstract, an actor’s address looks like <actor-id>@<hive-id>, with <actor-id> being a large, unguessable random bytestring and <hive-id> being the fingerprint of a public key. (However, both ids are calculated lazily, as necessary. Local references can get away with in-process object references without needing the overhead of generating ids.)
That’s enough theory; let’s see some more code.
Of course, actors can (and should) send each other messages:
> (define alice (spawn (lambda () 'hello-i-am-alice)))
> (define bob (spawn (lambda (friend) (format "My friend says: ~a" (<<- friend))))) > (<<- bob alice)
"My friend says: hello-i-am-alice"
Not just procedures can be actors... anything that defines the actor generic interface can be actors. Along with procedures, class-based objects are one such type in Racket which qualifies as an actor. Observe:
> (define animal% (class object% (super-new) (init-field name noise [hunger 50]) (define/public (hungry?) (> hunger 0)) (define/public (chat) (format "<~a> ~a!! I'm feeling ~a!" name noise (if (hungry?) "hungry" "stuffed"))) (define/public (feed kibbles) (set! hunger (- hunger kibbles)))))
> (define cat (spawn-new animal% [name "cat"] [noise "Meow"])) > (<<- cat 'chat)
"<cat> Meow!! I'm feeling hungry!"
As we can see, we can call public methods on our class-based actors, but we need to specify the method by its symbol.
Anyway, our poor cat is hungry! We should probably feed it.
> (<- cat 'feed 30)
Hm, so this is interesting! Instead of <<- we used <-. Early lisps experimenting with message passing used <- for send; Goblins carries on that tradition, and avoids a conflict with Racket’s "send" expression in the process. We pronounce <- "eventual send" and <<- "splitchronous send" (punned, just as you’d guess, on "synchronous send"... except it’s not synchronous, since our actor remains available to handling other messages). What’s the difference?
Well, you may have noticed that using <<- looks very much like running everyday straight-ahead synchronous code. We send off our message, and a "response" comes back in, returning whatever values (or raising whatever exception) is appropriate. Inside of an actor’s turn, calling <<- "splits" the turn; the actor’s currently executing code suspends (via delimited continuation magic) until a "response" comes back from the actor we sent the message to, at which case the code which was waiting is resumed on another turn. However, we remember that we have chosen to be highly "available", so our actor is not blocked while waiting for a message to come back; it can handle other messages in the interim. (Outside the actor turn environment, such as at the REPL as we’ve been playing in here, calling <<- does block, since we don’t have a way to suspend-and-be-woken-up-later, even though we may still wish to write straight-ahead code that interfaces with actors.) The splitting detail is very important! We will see why later.
<- is different; instead of suspending in wait of some response to come back, it shoots off the message and continues on its way, no splitting the turn or anything. Eventually it should probably get there.
However... we do see it returned something. This thing is a promise, and we can listen to it if we want to. We won’t just yet.
Is our cat still hungry though?
> (<<- cat 'chat)
"<cat> Meow!! I'm feeling hungry!"
Of course it is; our cat takes 50 kibbles to be full, so we’ll need to feed it again. Another 30 will put it over the edge and then some.
However, we don’t actually need that promise that <- returned in this case; we just want to feed the cat and get back to whatever we were doing. The default for <- is always to return a promise, but this can be wasteful. It might be that this is the wrong default, and that by default <- shouldn’t return a promise, and instead a promise needs to be requested specifically. This part of the API may change sometime in the near future. If we don’t care about the promise, as an optimization we can use <-np (for "<- no promise") instead, which doesn’t produce a promise.
At the moment, we don’t care about listening to it, so let’s use <-np.
> (<-np cat 'feed 30)
Up until now we’ve used <<- to chat with our cat. This was convenient because the value was "returned" to us. But remember that <- returned a promise? We can use on to listen to it. Here’s some code we could run:
(on (<- cat 'chat) (lambda (val) (displayln (format "Got back: ~a" val))) #:catch (lambda (err) (displayln "Uhoh, something is wrong with our cat!"))) ;; Should print out "Got back: <cat> Meow!! I'm feeling stuffed!"
The first argument to on is the promise we’d like to listen to. The second argument is a handler for when the promise succeeds. The procedure supplied to the #:catch keyword allows us to do error handling.
Let’s observe that while <<- returns the value to its continuation, handling a promise from <- with on does not. So instead of returning the value, we printed it out to the screen in this example. Though in a real actor system we generally want to have one actor handle responsibility for a resource, so maybe we’d set up an actor which handles displaying text to the screen.
It’s important to re-emphasize though that <<- "splits" up the turn. This is important to realize, in case you wrote an actor like the following:
;; An actor that supposedly feeds animals 10 kibbles ;; but only if they're hungry (define feeds-when-hungry (spawn (lambda (animal) (cond [(<<- animal 'hungry?) ;; race condition between above and below lines! (<-np animal 'feed 10) 'fed-it] [else 'didnt-feed-it]))))
See the bug? We check if our animal is fed, but since we’re using a "splitchronous" operation, this turn is split into two... between when the animal tells us if it’s hungry or not and our next turn where we choose to feed it or not, someone else might have swept in and fed the animal as well. Thus, we might accidentally overfeed our pet!
But... consider that this is still Racket, and we still have normal Racket sychronous code available to us. Local actors can provide an interface which gives support for direct, synchronous, immediate calls. This interface will not survive transfer between remote vats, so is safe to hand out with the assurance that it is for local-only use. This is safe from corruption because our actors only operate one turn at a time. But wait, doesn’t that mean an actor that goes into a busy loop can hose all the rest of the actors in the same Hive? The answer is "yes", but it’s possible to add on per-actor pre-emption. TODO: Explain how!
> (define animal2% (class animal% (super-new) (define/public (direct-access) this)))
> (define crow (spawn (new animal2% [name "crow"] [noise "Caw, caw"] [hunger 20])))
Now we can define and use a safer feeds-when-hungry kind of actor:
> (define feeds-when-hungry2 (spawn (lambda (animal) (define direct-animal (<<- animal 'direct-access)) (cond [(send direct-animal hungry?) (send direct-animal feed 10) 'fed-it] [else 'didnt-feed-it])))) > (<<- feeds-when-hungry2 crow)
> (<<- feeds-when-hungry2 crow)
> (<<- feeds-when-hungry2 crow)
And we can be assured that the crow really wasn’t overfed, because we made use of the synchronous local interface.
If you’ve used some other systems that have promises or callbacks, you may be familiar with the "pyramid of doom": your promise handlers keep nesting inward and inward and inward. Here’s a contrived example:
> (define car% (class object% (super-new) (init-field make model color) (define/public (description) (format "~a ~a ~a" color make model)) (define/public (drive mph) (define movement (cond [(< mph 0) "moving backwards"] [(= mph 0) "sitting still"] [(< mph 15) "crawling along the road"] [(< mph 30) "driving leisurely"] [(< mph 60) "driving along"] [(< mph 80) "speeding along"] [else "blasting down the highway"])) (format "The ~a is ~a!" (description) movement))))
> (define (spawn-car-factory default-make default-model default-color) (spawn (lambda (#:make [make default-make] #:model [model default-model] #:color [color default-color]) (spawn-new car% [make make] [model model] [color color])))) > (define honda-factory (spawn-car-factory "honda" "civic" "black"))
Now we can create cars with the honda-factory and drive them. If we wanted to make a car and print out the text from a driving interaction in one swoop, the most familiar code style for doing this can be achieved with the <<- operator:
> (displayln (<<- (<<- honda-factory #:color "blue") 'drive 16))
The blue honda civic is driving leisurely!
If we wanted to use <-, we could do so like this:
(on (<- honda-factory #:color "blue") (lambda (a-car) (on (<- a-car 'drive 16) (lambda (drive-desc) (displayln drive-desc)))))
But this is kind of hard to read, despite only being two message sends deep. This might discourage you from using the <- operator, but it has some extra power that the <<- does not: we can do eventual sends to promises and get back more promises. This cool design taken from the E programming language, laboratory of many great ideas. That probably sonds confusing, so see for yourself:
(on (<- (<- honda-factory #:color "blue") 'drive 16) (lambda (drive-desc) (displayln drive-desc)))
So what advantage does this have over using <<-? Two things: the rest of our code can proceed forward immediately; this may be useful if we have many messages to send out. We also save a round trip of "waking up" this suspended handler again. Best of all, once distributed inter-hive messaging lands in Goblins, we will be able to take advantage of the efficient, round-trip-avoiding power of promise pipelining.
So when to use <- vs <<- vs plain ol’ synchronous Racket code?
To be written :)
It’s not critical to understand as a user, so if this section breaks your brain, ignore it.
Technically <<- is built on top of <-. (Well technically on top of send-message, which permits an additional argument of "resolve this promise once the handler of this message completes".) There’s a delimited continuation "prompt" right above the actor event loop, and what <<- does is it "suspends" the current code to that prompt, calls the target using <- passing in all arguments, and then listens to the resulting promise with on, setting up the listener to resume the continuation of the handler with the response values on success, and on error to propagate the exception.
So, it’s not magic... no more so than delimited continuations normally are. :)