[erlang-questions] simple-one-for-one

Mihai Balea <>
Tue May 26 03:30:42 CEST 2009

On May 23, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Kaiduan Xie wrote:
> What is the rationale to put the process under the simple-one-for-one
> supervision? If the process does not need to be-restarted when it
> terminates, there is no reason to supervise it. For the TCP connection
> or call, if something goes wrong and causes the process to die, we can
> just let it die without restarting the process.

If I'm not mistaken, having such processes under a supervision tree  
helps when you want to gracefully shut them down. Also helps when  
you're having an OTP application and are attempting to upgrade/ 
downgrade it. I'm pretty sure there are other situations when various  
tools/applications rely on the supervision tree to handle processes


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list