Well, you could alternatively create 10 unique child specs?
Cheers!
Adam
On 4/17/07, Adam Lindberg <eproxus gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, you could alternatively create 10 unique child
specs?
>
> Cheers!
> Adam
>
> On 4/17/07, Mazen <mazenerlang-consulting.com>
wrote:
> >
> > There are two (imo important) things that you lose
if you choose to implement your own supervisor. The first
thing is the restart frequency. It is very helpful for the
simple reason that if something is crashing too fast... It
is probably an error in the system, but if it crashes now
and then, it might just be failing at some point. And there
is a big difference between them. Many people probably dont
put too much thought into this when they have a supervisor
and just use it as a "restarter". If this is
important to you, you will save a lot of work.
> >
> > The second thing you lose is the restart strategy.
If you only have 1 process... and you want to restart it,
that is fine... but if you have several and they are all
linked in some way (not linked as in link() but as in
working with eachother) then the generic supervisor is good
to have and eliminates alot of extra work.
> >
> > However, if none of these two are important to
you, and you just want to use the them as simple "my
process crashed, lets restart it" then there is nothing
to lose by making your gen_server doing that and I've done
it myself in many of my own projects. Particulary when I
want to know exactly which process that died... as I don't
get that from the supervisor, it restarts a new instance
without any information.
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > I have an mnesia table with e.g. 10 number of
rows. I start 10 processes that are receiving events and
updating their own dedicated rows. Then I have a reader that
reads this table once in a while.
> >
> > Now if a process of those 10 crash, I want to know
which one... so that I can restart a new process and tell it
"you are updating this id".
> >
> > Ofcourse this can be done with a normal
supervisors but it becomes so much easier. So the answer is
as always... what do you need your "supervisor" to
do, and what solves the problem in the best way?
> >
> > /Mazen
> >
> > -- Guest Wrote --------------------
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've googled for this but I can't find the answer.
In an OTP
> > application, is it acceptable to have a
non-supervisor process (say a
> > gen_server) start one or more supervisors? The
diagrams in OTP
> > principles never show such an arrangement, but
they don't warn against
> > it either. The gen_server in question is itself a
long lived and
> > supervised process. Will the supervisors be
correctly linked to the
> > gen_server that started them? Or am I asking for
problems doing it
> > this way?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Edmund
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questionserlang.org
> > http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> > Post recived from mailinglist
> >
_________________________________________________________
> > Post sent from http://www.trapexit.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questionserlang.org
> > http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >
>
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
erlang-questionserlang.org
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
|
