[erlang-questions] An answer: how does SASL know that a process died?

Richard Carlsson <>
Fri Nov 1 12:40:54 CET 2013


If it doesn't change the current behaviour (as a first step), I don't 
see that it would need an EEP.

    /Richard

On 2013-11-01 12:39 , Robert Virding wrote:
> 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.
>
> Robert
>
> ----- 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.
>>
>>       /Richard
>>
>> 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 mailing list