I've been reading a bit lately about functional languages. Coming from 10+ years of OO development, I'm finding it difficult to get my head around how on earth one can point the pure functional approach (i.e. the same method called with the same parameters does the same thing) at a problem where typically (in an OO program) I would need to cache data.
Do we just admit that there might need to be an actor in the program which is not immutable (i.e. the cache). I just watched a presentation by Joe Armstrong on infoq and he seemed pretty dogmatic in this regard!
Do we just admit that looking up data might be expensive (because we can never cache it)? If so, how can we control, for example, the load on some shared resource (e.g. a database)
Is there some magic fairy dust, which I don't know about yet, which solves the whole problem and then makes a nice cup of tea afterwards.
Certainly a google search for "Erlang Cache" seems to return a fair few results...
It is data which must be immutable in Erlang, not actors.
Long-lived actors normally live in a tail-recursive function, the arguments of which serve as their state and certainly can change between calls.
-module(cache).
-export([start/0, get_c/1, put_c/2, clear/1]).
start() -> register(spawn(fun () -> loop(dict:new()) end), cache).
loop(Dict) -> receive
{get, From, Key} -> From ! {cache_result, Key, dict:fetch(Key, Dict)};
{set, Key, Value} -> NewDict = dict:store(Key, Value, Dict),
loop(NewDict);
%% etc.
end
put_c(Key, Value) -> cache ! {set, Key, Value}
%% etc.
When you call put_c
, the actor's "state" changes even though all data involved is immutable.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With