We're trying to perform some tasks sequentially an...

# coroutines

[Lulu]

We're trying to perform some tasks sequentially and i was wondering if an actor or a Mutex is better suited for this case. There'd be many queues and each of them will be processing few tasks.

[zak.taccardi]

a mutex is the coroutines version of a lock that is non-re-entrant

[zak.taccardi]

I find code that uses locks difficult to work with, and the fact that a mutex is non-re-entrant makes it even more difficult

[zak.taccardi]

that said, you can make a mutex re-entrant with the code shown here https://elizarov.medium.com/phantom-of-the-coroutine-afc63b03a131

[zak.taccardi]

however I love actors and find them delightful to use, but there’s some boilerplate around setting them up

[Lulu]

I know the difference between them but I'm not sure which one is better for this specific case. I'm not very enthusiastic about having hundreds of channels.

[zak.taccardi]

do you need multiple queues? or a single queue that distributes work to multiple “workers”

[Lulu]

Multiple queues

[zak.taccardi]

okay yeah then an actor seems appropriate

[zak.taccardi]

does your actor need to shut down after completing its work?

[Lulu]

Possibly, to save memory

[zak.taccardi]

(an actor would just be a coroutine that maintains a queue of work to be done in the form of a channel)

[zak.taccardi]

would each actor have its own on-going state?

[Lulu]

Yes

[zak.taccardi]

yeah, an actor definitely seems appropriate then

[zak.taccardi]

allows you to define state unique to that actor, separate from other actors

[Lulu]

I see, "the state" is a good point. Thanks for the input