[erlang-questions] net_kernel:handle_call

Musumeci, Antonio S <>
Mon Feb 22 18:14:26 CET 2010


I understand that. Others are the same however they are designed *not* to fail when sent spurious messages. Rex just doesn't reply for example. Erroring on the side of the client who made the mistake seems a lot more reasonable than killing the entire VM.

There is a certain expectation of trust within the VM... Allowing anyone to just crash the entire system however seems excessive.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vance Shipley [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 10:21 AM
To: 
Cc: Musumeci, Antonio S (IT); Robert Raschke; 
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] net_kernel:handle_call

The documented interface to net_kernel does not define a direct use of gen_server:call/2 or a direct message passing interface.
The client and server sides of the program are implemented in the same module.  If the net_kernel server receives a message other than one it expects it is a programming error.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 05:43:02PM -0500,  wrote:
}  Your example is fine... but doesn't represent what is happening here.
}  Your code would cause the client to error... net_kernel, the server, is }  dying in this case. We are talking about a major component of the }  system which will bring down the entire system if you happen to send it }  a message it doesn't understand.

-- 
	-Vance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy, and notify sender. Sender does not intend to waive confidentiality or privilege. Use of this email is prohibited when received in error. We may monitor and store emails to the extent permitted by applicable law.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list