sends don't block, right?
Thu Feb 26 10:57:56 CET 2004
--- Chris Pressey <> wrote:
> I'd much, much, MUCH rather it just kill the
> receiving process or
> (better) discard the message after a receive buffer
> limit is reached,
> than taking down the entire node, though.
Yes ... I think Safe Erlang had some support for this
(but did it ever get implemented?). Though when I
fretted about similar issues, Per Bergqvist told me I
could also just use several nodes and limit the size
of each to get roughly the same effect. (At some extra
cost, of course.) This seemed sensible enough.
> btw, I agree 100% (maybe 1000%) with Joe on the idea
> that hiding IPC
> stuff inside wrapper functions is just plain
> *wrongheaded*. Yes,
> abstraction is good, but no, a function makes a
> *horrible* abstraction
> for IPC
No more rpc:call, gen_server:call or gen_tcp:send
then? I agree that encapsulation and performance make
uneasy bedfellows, but I would dearly like to have
some way to abstract certain things.
> -- especially in a "functional" language
> where functions aren't
> supposed to have side-effects :)
Very true. The cure seems worse than the disease,
though :-) Is there a better way than either?
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
More information about the erlang-questions