Consider re-implementing "Nothing" as a micro-actor

[dsyme]

Please reimlpement this functionality using the "micro-actor" approach being so persuasively advocated by @gregoryyoung. See https://twitter.com/gregyoung/status/628618631895744514

[gregoryyoung]

Don what would be the best way of doing this in F#? I am guessing mailboxes? Can we call the mailbox /dev/null?

[mavnn]

I think we need a dependency on Akka.net . A concept this complex is too large to be entirely rewritten from scratch, and should instead leverage the inherent synergies available in the .net eco-system.

It would also open up the possibilities of running Nothing nodes on remote machines.

[gregoryyoung]

Would you lean towards a Nothing per Instance model or a clustered Nothing
Singleton?

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Michael Newton notifications@github.com
wrote:

I think we need a dependency on Akka.net . A concept this complex is too
large to be entirely rewritten from scratch, and should instead leverage
the inherent synergies available in the .net eco-system.

It would also open up the possibilities of running Nothing nodes on remote
machines.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#30 (comment)
.

Studying for the Turing test

[mavnn]

I think losing the singleton aspect would be a mistake, but you are entirely correct that clustering would be required for a true high availibility solution. As such I'd lean towards a clustered Nothing Singleton.

[dsyme]

I see a big future for Nothing as a service.

[gregoryyoung]

https://devnull-as-a-service.com

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015, Don Syme notifications@github.com wrote:

I see a big future for Nothing as a service.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#30 (comment)
.

Studying for the Turing test

[isaacabraham]

We should probably build in some Azure queues as well, you need that resiliency in case something goes wrong whilst calculating nothing.