non-trivial supervisor idioms?

Steve Davis <>
Tue Sep 28 15:18:21 CEST 2010


Hi Mazen,

I understand your rationale, but I'm not so sure it's a cause for
concern. The node/application is entirely dependent on the
availability of those "generic" apps. By putting all parts of the app
under one supervisor I have a situation where any issues will allow
the node to behave in a controlled way. I believe that the approach of
a single top-level supervisor for the app and dependencies is
definitely an "OTP" thing to do. Possibly the only drawback is that it
uses undocumented APIs (the sups) from libraries in the platform.
However, I'm interested in further thoughts from yourself or others on
this point.

Regards,
Steve

On Sep 28, 1:05 am, Mazen Harake <>
wrote:
> I'm not sure this is a good idea imho, I think included applications are
> meant to be used for your own specific applications only and not the
> generic ones like mnesia, crypto etc. I could be wrong but doing it the
> way you described just feels wrong.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list