gen_fsm:send_after | start_timer

Francesco Cesarini <>
Mon Jul 9 18:43:32 CEST 2001


Hi,
I do not have a decent work environment to do any tests right, but I believe
that an attempt at cleaning up the timer module has been made. The design rule
in the AXD is from 1996, and a lot has changed since then. I do not think the
ban is in the updated design rules.

I notice that the timers are still inserted in lists using insertion sort, so if
timing is still a problem (How many timers will you have running at any one
time?), I would personally rewrite the timer module instead of complicating the
FSMs.

Cheers,
Francesco
--
http://www.erlang-consulting.com

Sean Hinde wrote:

> > Hi Sean,
> > why don't you use timer:apply_after/4 and create your own
> > timeout events?
>
> Mainly because timer:apply_after/4 is implemented in a pretty unbelievably
> degenerate way if there are more than a small number of timers running. I
> remember reading that use of timer module is banned in AXD for this reason.
>
> - Sean
>
> NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:
> This email (including attachments) is confidential.  If you have received
> this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this
> email from your system without copying or disseminating it or placing any
> reliance upon its contents.  We cannot accept liability for any breaches of
> confidence arising through use of email.  Any opinions expressed in this
> email (including attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect our opinions.  We will not accept responsibility for any commitments
> made by our employees outside the scope of our business.  We do not warrant
> the accuracy or completeness of such information.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: francesco.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 352 bytes
Desc: Card for Francesco Cesarini
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20010709/949df6f9/attachment.vcf>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list