[erlang-questions] Can gen_tcp/inets store connection-specific user state?
Mon Jul 19 19:51:47 CEST 2010
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Juan Jose Comellas <>wrote:
> The beauty of Erlang is precisely that you don't have to worry about this.
That seems to be a common reaction when I pose a question in this manner. I
would suggest that round tripping lots of explicit state is very much the
norm of Erlang, and while that's a bit ugly IMO, here I'm running into a
case where I'd like to do it where it isn't possible.
Why are you worried about having one Erlang process per connection?
I already spelled that out in my previous email, but beyond that, they are
unneeded in this case and add additional overhead. The requirement to use a
process is imposed only by the design of the gen_tcp/inets APIs.
It seems like attaching a single piece of immutable state to each connection
is going to add a lot of complexity. In order to expose a sequential,
side-effect based API to the end user, I'm going to have to proxy all
communication between inets and the end user, and also provide process
Let's just say I consider this an unparsimonious and inelegant solution with
more overhead than leveraging the end-to-end potential for associating
connection specific state with particular sockets.
Medioh! A Kudelski Brand
More information about the erlang-questions