C# Interface?

Vlad Dumitrescu (EAW) <>
Mon Mar 3 08:59:29 CET 2003

> From: Vance Shipley [mailto:]

> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:30:48AM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> }  ............... I even mentioned it here, and the answer 
> was that this 
> }  would impede with the Erlang node's stability (just like a 
> linked-in driver 
> }  does, but since the external application is more complex, 
> the chances for 
> }  it to crash are bigger).
> I keep hearing this type of thing and always find it humorous.  If I
> incorporate an Erlang node into a project I'm concerned about the 
> stability of the resulting system.  While Erlang could be a shared 
> application environment like, a Unix system, it isn't used that way
> anywhere.  In OTP you see this philosophy in the release handler.  
> There is no way to add a new application on to a running system, you
> may only upgrade.  So if we are always using the Erlang node to do 
> just the one job, and that job needs a linked in driver, why would
> I be so concerned about the possibility of a node crashing because
> my code was bad?  If my code is bad it doesn't work period.


I agree with you, I just forwarded the answer that I got. However there might be cases when this is not true: for example if the "one thing" the node does is a Web server - if one has an admin interface using a linked-in driver GUI that keeps crashing the server, then that's not good. If the GUI was separate, the rest of the world wouldn't have to know something is broken ;-)


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list