[erlang-questions] A possible problem with the canonical listener idiom
Thu Jan 1 19:46:44 CET 2009
> +1 to everything Serge says.
Unfortunately, he missed the point: this isn't about flow control, this is
about missing initial packets, and the code he linked to suffers the exact
> Also, unless I'm missing something, I
> don't see how the original code can work with active set to anything
> but false anyway, since it never sets the controlling process for the
> connected socket to that of the spawned handler.
Setting inet options should implicitly set the owner process. (Note that I
said should, not "does": I'm not saying this is correct, I'm saying this is
what I expected.) My belief in that regard is reinforced by the fact that
the code does work as expected.
However, I will explicitly set the owner process now, both in the blog
example and in the library code. Thank you for pointing out this problem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions