Fun with Erlang (was Re: Stand Alone Erlang for Windows. yetagain)
Mon Mar 19 19:53:47 CET 2001
Ulf Wiger wrote:
> I've had a few ideas:
> - if code runs in another node, one might want to specialize the RPC
> behaviour. Then, in fact making RPC a behaviour would be very handy.
> One could perhaps specify at Erlang boot time via a kernel
> environment variable which behaviour module to use for rpc.
> When you think about it, lots more modules in OTP should really
> be behaviours that could be specialized.
I totally agree. In an ideal world, almost everything would be a
behaviour, and it would be just as easy to create a new behaviour as a
new module... they're very cool.
> - We've played around with different ways of taking care of really
> hairy upgrade scenarios. One idea that came up (I think OTP is
> still thinking about whether to cheer or throw eggs at us) was
> to make it possible via the OTP R7B trace mechanism to reroute
> a function call to another function (with same arity). For example
> all calls to mnesia:write/1 could be rerouted to myMnesia:write/2;
> a corresponding trap for message sending could be to call
> M:F(Pid, Message) instead of sending the message. Dangerous stuff,
> but it would be extremely flexible.
I thought about it over the weekend and I think I'll cheer, and save my
eggs for people who decide to abuse it. I like it, it's probably worth
the danger. Lying to the computer about what's going on is a long
standing tradition, after all...
> Have you read the thesis on OTP behaviours for simulations?
> I don't remember the URL, but it was posted on this list recently.
Yes, I've read most of it now. It's a very good paper so the URL is
probably worth posting again.
"Ten short days ago all I could look forward to was a dead-end job as a
engineer. Now I have a promising future and make really big Zorkmids."
Chris Pressey, Cat's Eye Technologies, http://www.catseye.mb.ca/
Esoteric Topics Mailing List: http://www.catseye.mb.ca/list.html
More information about the erlang-questions