What do you think about creating only one message for an actor?

[drjdpowell]

JackDunaway wrote:

I don't use AF for production code, but I view messages as being "part of" the documentation of an API, which then has the concrete implementation of business logic on the receiver-side and the concrete implementation of message construction client-side.

Mmmm... I'll put you down your pool answer as "part of the sending code" then, as the "API", and documentation thereof, is part of the receiving actor codebase. 

The other view would be that the actor class's public methods are the only API, and that messages are the responsibility of the code calling the actor.  Different callers could use entirely independant sets of messages to comunicate with and actor.

[drjdpowell]

JackDunaway wrote:

For this reason, I fully endorse the sentiment, though not necessarily the implementation (cluster of string/LVVariant as the Message), of the original post.

I think the OP was suggesting something like an enum plus cluster of datatypes, requiring a separate message type for each actor.  This is inbetween the two "main paradigms" that Daklu mentions above, and thus doesn't really get the full advantage of either.