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

[Steve Vinoski]

On 1/1/09, John Haugeland <stonecypher@REDACTED> wrote:
> 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.

I still contend that it doesn't work as expected, or more accurately
didn't work in your svn version 98. I posted a test program that shows
the problem, along with a patch for your code, to your blog:

<http://fullof.bs/a-better-erlang-tcp-listening-pattern-addressingthe-fast-packet-loss-problem#comment-1626>

Also, I don't believe inet:setopts sets the controlling process,
judging from the Erlang source code, but I'm sure someone will correct
me if I'm wrong.

--steve