[erlang-questions] hot code reloading

[Gianfranco Alongi]

If you are alone, this will always be your friend, no matter of time or
country http://www.developerduck.com/



On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, t x <txrev319@REDACTED> wrote:

> -module(m).
> -export([loop/0]).
>
> loop() ->
>     receive
>         code_switch ->
>             m:loop();
>         Msg ->
>             ...
>             loop()
>     end.
>
> This is #$%-ing brilliant!
>
> At first, I thought:
>
>   "this is a stupid way to demonstrate global-loop vs local-loop"
>
>
> However, this does much more than that.
>
>   It means that
>
>   * when an existing loop is running
>   * after we do a hot reload
>   * after the code processes an old message
>   * it then calls the _new_ loop
>
>
> Yeah, preaching to the choir, but this is awesome, and I have no one
> else to share this intellectual excitement with. :-)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Gianfranco Alongi
> <gianfranco.alongi@REDACTED> wrote:
> > I actually recommend the documentation, it covers this in a few
> paragraphs
> > http://www.erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/code_loading.html#id84603
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Bob Ippolito <bob@REDACTED> wrote:
> >>
> >> The remote call bar:hello() will always call the newest version of
> >> bar:hello/0. The calling module is irrelevant, even if the call happens
> from
> >> the old version of bar the newest version will always be called using
> that
> >> syntax. A local call from bar to hello() (or an equivalent closure)
> would
> >> use the current version referenced by that process.
> >>
> >> Modules are not linked together in any way so how or when they were
> >> compiled is not so relevant.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Saturday, March 1, 2014, t x <txrev319@REDACTED> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>   I'm reading Chapter 8 of Programming Erlang, and I want to verify if
> >>> my mental model of erlang code reloading is correct. My erlang is a
> >>> bit weak, so I'm going to use C++ notation.
> >>>
> >>> https://gist.github.com/anonymous/9299344
> >>>
> >>>   Is the above correct with respect to *compile* and *lookup* ?
> >>>
> >>>   It seems to me the defining characteristics of erlang's code hot
> >>> reloading is:
> >>>
> >>>   * we have an "old" and a "new"
> >>>   * the new becomes the old, and we kill all processes spawned by the
> old
> >>>
> >>>   Suppose we have
> >>>
> >>>   * module foo, module bar;
> >>>   * foo:hi(), refers to bar:hello();
> >>>
> >>>   * we recompile bar; now, all foo's references to bar, uses the
> >>> _latest_ bar, not the bar that existed when foo was compiled
> >>>
> >>> If I have misunderstood anything, please correct me.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> erlang-questions mailing list
> >>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> erlang-questions mailing list
> >> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140302/3d499190/attachment.htm>