4 ms·
I still don’t get why service, actor and rpc must be language keywords, when they aren’t semantically bound to a remote provider’s signatures. Why there’s actor
by wruza 4y ago
I still don’t get why service, actor and rpc must be language keywords, when they aren’t semantically bound to a remote provider’s signatures. Why there’s actor needed at all? Rpc in place of async? If you have an rpc protocol implemented under `rpc`, why not just make an interface named PersonService and specialize a connection with it? It doesn’t actually make any sense.
- marviel 4y agoI think the choice could be made a few different ways for sure. The interesting thing about the rpc object, that it didn't explore in this instance explicitly (but I must assume it had "plans" for if you want to call it that?) was things that you may be allowed to do with the rpc object that you couldn't with classes, and vice versa. When I have a minute, I'll feed it your question, and see what it says