[Accepted] SE-0344: Distributed Actor Runtime

Hi everyone. The second review of SE-0344: Distributed Actor Runtime ended on March 31, 2021. The core team has decided to accept this proposal. This second revision incorporated feedback from the first round of review, making the initialization of a distributed actor instance's actorSystem explicit inside non-delegating initializers, and turning the RemoteCallTarget type for identifying methods when sending remote messages into a fully opaque type. The core team is satisfied with the way the proposal addressed the first review's feedback, and we did not receive any public feedback during the second review. Thank you to the authors for incorporating the feedback, and thank you to everyone in the community who helped shape this proposal!


@ktoso I have played around a little with Xcode 14.0 beta 3 (I currently cannot check beta 4) and have noticed that the behavior regarding RemoteCallArgument does not match the documentation. For these functions, the properties are currently filled as follows:

// label: "a", name: "a", effectiveLabel: "a"
distributed func callMe(a: String) {}

// label: "b", name: "c", effectiveLabel: "b"
distributed func callMe(b c: String) {}

// label: nil, name: "d", effectiveLabel: "d"
distributed func callMe(_ d: String) {}

As per the documentation, in the first case, label should be nil.

I think, the behavior as currently implemented makes much more sense. However, effectiveLabel is now pretty superfluous and returns the wrong string in the third case.

1 Like

Thanks a lot for reporting, seems something is slightly off here -- would you mind opening an issue over on GitHub - apple/swift: The Swift Programming Language about it? I'll be sure to look into it.

I think we should mirror whatever the language's right wording and semantics are about those, I'll search around the language spec and make sure the impl and docs match that :+1:

Thanks for the kind response. :slightly_smiling_face: I have opened an issue: https://github.com/apple/swift/issues/60303

1 Like

Thank you, will look into it