Rx.NET VS sobjectizer

One of the greatest things i discovered recently, is Reactive programming / Reactive Extensions ( https://github.com/dotnet/reactive ).

https://github.com/dotnet/reactive has a lot of different time related extensions for "events". Maybe you'll find something for yourself, if you google for rate limiting with reactive.

Install Reactive Extensions: https://github.com/dotnet/reactive

Another option is to use the RxJava library in Java. This library uses reactive programming principles to make it easy to write asynchronous and event-driven code. It's particularly well-suited for handling streams of data and allows you to write code that is both efficient and easy to read.

I'd use a dedicated event bus based on Reactive Extensions or MediatR to publish domain events from your domain services. This probably doesn't solve all your ViewModel update problems as is, maybe you need to revise the granularity (maybe you can have smaller ViewModels that refresh single property that exposes the Model) and lifespan (sometimes you can create a ViewModel, make it perform it's task and then discard it completely) of your ViewModels.

If you're finding yourself in a situation where you need to turn this behavior into a pattern because there are a lot of View Models that need to execute async business logic in response to some changes, I'd go with something like MediatR or Reactive Extensions. The idea is, again, that some other, probably business-level, component listens to changes in a decoupled way (that means it doesn't subscribe directly to your View Model, but to an event bus instead). View Model publishes change events to the event bus, and business-component reacts to these events by executing the business logic.

We'd really appreciate if it consumers of the library could update and provide any issues / bugs via the GitHub repo: https://github.com/dotnet/reactive/issues

An additional rationale for structuring cooperations in hierarchies is to facilitate the sharing and propagation of dispatchers. A recent update of SObjectizer includes new functionalities that allow access to both agent and cooperation dispatchers. This enhancement was prompted by feedback provided by a user and myself.

If a stop signal arrives, it will be enqueued at the end as a demand for image_producer_callback. This means, it will be processed after the other 6 demands currently in the queue. Maybe this is not an issue but in some cases it might be. At this point, another feature of SObjectizer is to consider: agent priorities. Essentially, this feature allows for the demands to be handled in different orders based on the priorities of agents. In this context, if we assign image_producer_callback a higher priority than others, the “stop signal” would be processed before the rest of the requests.

The real solution consists in using another slick feature of SObjectizer: mutable messages.

However, this kind of filtering is inefficient and might result in a significant run-time cost. Indeed, every empty cv::Mat follows all the message handling workflow, only to be thrown out. Although we expect that empty images will be sporadic, a more idiomatic approach exists: delivery filters.

SObjectizer’s agent states are quite sophisticated and provide some utilities that might be useful for developing a working solution. First of all, image_viewer can be modeled as a two-state agent:

An alternative way is using SObjectizer’s timers.

Those who came looking for actor model examples should check out sobjectizer

In sobjectizer the ownership is held by "environment" , while in rotor each thread must held appropriate context, when actor environment is running.

May be actor frameworks like caf, sobjectizer or rotor is something, that you are looking for.

SObjectizer on GitHub