[erlang-questions] (no subject)
Fri Jun 15 20:15:46 CEST 2007
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:06:31AM -0700, Thomas Lindgren wrote:
} > http://wiki.trapexit.org/index.php/Cascading_Behaviours
} Writing all the "redirection code" explicitly is a bit
} cumbersome compared to object-oriented inheritance. Is
} there a better erlang-y way of doing this?
What this was supposed to be was an OTP-y way of doing things.
I have used this technique to create APIs for services I've
written. For example in my Q.921/LAPD protocol stack (*)
implementation I use a lapd_mux_fsm(+) behaviour to provide the
stack specific functions and let the user implement a layer 1
binding in her own gen_fsm like module.
I don't much care how much typing I need to do for this use,
it only gets done once. I created a template for gen_fsm and
gen_server however so when I redo the effort it's easy.
I've gone back and forth over the years on what an API should
look like. Originally folks were encouraged to wrap the API
in a functional interface; foo:send(Msg), etc. A more erlang-y
way would be to use explicit message passing; Foo ! Msg. I
use OTP extensively for most of my production work so I have
also found that gen_fsm:send(foo, Msg) was a logical method.
If I were to embrace the plain_fsm/sys_fsm method fully I
would ditch the OTP API entirely and have a satisfyingly
functional erlang-y interface using pure message passing.
More information about the erlang-questions