Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cancellation of timeouts #160

Open
jmalloc opened this issue Aug 31, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Cancellation of timeouts #160

jmalloc opened this issue Aug 31, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
needs adr The changes discussed require an ADR undecided Further discussion is required to how (or whether) to proceed

Comments

@jmalloc
Copy link
Member

jmalloc commented Aug 31, 2023

This issue a place for discussion about how to (conceptually) cancel a pending timeout message. This is, by design, currently not an explicit feature. Instead, a timeout is canceled implicitly when the process that created it is ended.

The reasoning behind this decision is nuanced. The main influencing factors are:

  1. The asynchronous/non-deterministic nature of message-based applications
  2. The desire to encode domain logic using business language, as opposed to technical language, as much as possible
  3. A desire to avoid "double handling" of timeout cancellation logic

I think we should have a verbal discussion about this, from which I will take some notes to include here and in an ADR. We can use our somewhat typical example of an invoicing system that using a timeout message to mark invoices as overdue.

/cc @koden-km

@jmalloc jmalloc added the adr Discussion about a proposed ADR label Aug 31, 2023
@jmalloc
Copy link
Member Author

jmalloc commented Aug 7, 2024

A question was raised in Slack about the progress of this issue, but the use case was solved by checking against the process' internal state. We will not make any related changes to Dogma at this time.

@jmalloc jmalloc added needs adr The changes discussed require an ADR undecided Further discussion is required to how (or whether) to proceed and removed adr Discussion about a proposed ADR labels Aug 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs adr The changes discussed require an ADR undecided Further discussion is required to how (or whether) to proceed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant