[erlang-patches] Re: [erlang-questions] Possible supervisor patch
Filipe David Manana
Sat Dec 18 16:57:10 CET 2010
Exactly, that was my workaround, and the motivation for that patch was
exactly to make it atomic.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Robert Virding
> You can do it today with:
> restart_child(Sup, Id, NewSpec) ->
> supervisor:terminate_child(Sup, Id),
> supervisor:delete_child(Sup, Id),
> supervisor:start_child(Sup, NewSpec).
> BUT, it would not be guaranteed to be an atomic operation and it is up to the caller to ensure that the id remains the same.
> ----- "Filipe David Manana" <> wrote:
>> I find it useful to be able to restart a supervisor child with
>> arguments different from those specified in the MFA component of the
>> original child spec.
>> Is this completely against the principles of OTP supervisors/servers,
>> or something that may be added?
>> I made a quick and tiny patch that adds this feature and is working as
>> I want:
>> If someone from the OTP team confirms this might be considered for
>> inclusion, I'll be glad to refine it if necessary.
>> best regards,
>> Filipe David Manana,
>> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
>> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
>> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
>> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
>> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> To unsubscribe; mailto:
> Robert Virding, Erlang Solutions Ltd.
> erlang-patches (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:
Filipe David Manana,
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
More information about the erlang-questions