[erlang-questions] A possible problem with the canonical listener idiom

John Haugeland <>
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
same defect.




> 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...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20090101/8227aea8/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list