[erlang-questions] Re: Internal mechanism of monitor

[Thomas Anderson]

Thank you for the concise explain. It is very clear and useful!

One more question. I read that supervisor behavior is applied for
start/ stop child process with different strategy (one for one, one
for all, etc.) In addition to such strategy is there any other
behavior (pattern) that is usually applied regarding to the fault
tolerance?

Thanks again for kindly help.

I appreciate it.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Attila Rajmund Nohl
<attila.r.nohl@REDACTED> wrote:
> 2011/3/29, Thomas Anderson <t.dt.aanderson@REDACTED>:
>> I read some articles talking about erlang and am caught attention by
>> erlang's intrinsically fault tolerance features.
>>
>> In the paper `Making reliable distributed system in the presence of
>> software error,' it explains error handling with e.g links and
>> monitor. But it only refers to function such as link(), spwan_link(),
>> monitor(), etc., and some basic illustration about these two
>> functions. After searching on erlang.org as well as the internet I do
>> not find document or threads discussing its internal mechanism. For
>> instance, is it failure detector?
>
> The documentation says that
>
> "erlang:monitor(Type, Item) -> MonitorRef
> ...
> The calling process starts monitoring Item which is an object of type
> Type. Currently only processes can be monitored, i.e. the only allowed
> Type is process
> ...
> A  'DOWN' message will be sent to the monitoring process if Item dies,
> if Item does not exist, or if the connection is lost to the node which
> Item resides on."
>
> So it's a failure detector.
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>