[erlang-questions] order of processes in supervisor

[Ladislav Lenart]

You're welcome!

Happy hacking,

Ladislav Lenart


On 21.3.2012 13:19, bartek wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:09:00 +0100
> Ladislav Lenart<lenartlad@REDACTED>  wrote:
>
>> Can you provide us with a stack trace of the crash? Chances
>> are it is crashing for a different cause than you think.
>>
>
> Ehm - indeed it was... I changed the ordering and it crashed for
> another reason, and it mislead me. Sorry about that, thanks for help.
>
> Bartek
>
>> Ladislav Lenart
>>
>>
>> On 21.3.2012 12:55, bartek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:32:51 +0100
>>> bartek<bartek@REDACTED>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to configure supervisor so that it makes sure its
>>>> child processes are started in due order - meaning child B starts
>>>> only after A started successfully and completed its initialization?
>>>>
>>>> I have two processes of which one depends on the other, so I need
>>>> to make sure that B is running only when A is running. I know can
>>>> achieve it by monitoring, but I want them both supervised, and when
>>>> they are being started by a supervisor B goes into a cyclic restart
>>>> until A gets up, so this is not a clean solution. What is the right
>>>> way to do it? Start B's supervisor from process A? Or use dynamic
>>>> child creation somehow? But then a child process would have to get
>>>> reference to its supervisor and call it after it is done - would it
>>>> be kosher from OTP point of view?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Bartek Górny
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I read this one :) But the supervisor seems to trigger their startup
>>> but not wait for it to complete. At least this is what I observed -
>>> my child list is [A, B], and B in its init does "monitor(A)", and it
>>> crashes.
>>>
>>> B.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>