[erlang-questions] An answer: how does SASL know that a process died?
Fri Nov 1 12:39:03 CET 2013
I think that would be a reasonable solution if we want to keep the functionality. It would make it visible and programmable. And make me happy. :-) Would it need an EEP or could OTP team just fix it.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Carlsson" <>
> To: "Robert Virding" <>, "Anthony Ramine" <>
> Cc: "Erlang Questions" <>
> Sent: Friday, 1 November, 2013 10:41:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] An answer: how does SASL know that a process died?
> This could be improved by making it work in the same way as undefined
> functions etc.: by defining that a particular function in the
> error_handler module gets called with the error information as
> arguments. Then the formatting and sending to error_logger can be done
> in Erlang code, making it much more transparent and easier to change
> what it does, and no longer hard-coding a connection in the VM between
> process termination and a high level service like the logger. You can
> even avoid the whole send operation if you just want to drop these events.
> On 2013-11-01 02:46 , Robert Virding wrote:
> > No, how the error_handler works is well defined, it is written in erlang,
> > and you can affect what it does. Which are 3 things the sending of
> > messages to error_logger is not. You can also directly SEE what the
> > error_handler does.
> > Robert
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Anthony Ramine" <>
> >> To: "Robert Virding" <>
> >> Cc: "Richard Carlsson" <>, "Erlang Questions"
> >> <>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 31 October, 2013 4:25:47 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] An answer: how does SASL know that a
> >> process died?
> >> Would you get rid of error_handler too? Because I find that worse than the
> >> error_logger situation. At least a logger is just a logger, it can’t
> >> masquerade a function call as another one or do fancy things like this.
> >> --
> >> Anthony Ramine
> >> Le 31 oct. 2013 à 16:12, Robert Virding
> >> <>
> >> a écrit :
> >>> What a stupid thing for the system to do! Erlang is Erlang and OTP is
> >>> something on top of Erlang. It was never written into the spec because we
> >>> didn't know about it. How can we get rid of it? It is definitely a bug,
> >>> at
> >>> best a bad design decision!
More information about the erlang-questions