[erlang-questions] managing OS processes

[Tim Watson]

On 26 May 2012 23:00, Anthony Molinaro <anthonym@REDACTED> wrote:
> I've found a need for this sort of thing as well.  +1 for getting something
> into OTP itself.   I'm sure the real issue will be with Windows, although
> I believe there was some code in couchdb for doing some control of windows
> processes, and maybe erlexec already supports Windows?  Anyway, I can't
> say I'd do much other than testing, but just wanted to voice my support.
>

So I really do prefer the idea of patching the OTP mechanism, but I
think it's worth those of us who're consider it discussing (a) what is
missing that we'd like to have and (b) the general approach, with the
OTP team before doing this. I do not want to spend a month building
some patch that will just be rejected - I'd rather know up front if
it's likely to be accepted and what kind of approach would be
reasonable.

That is the flip side of this - it would be better to have the feature
in OTP proper, but it introduces risk to change the emulator and
having *normal* port process handling erlexec is nice and safe. But
not so clean.