[erlang-questions] Using ssl (via ranch) {active, once} behaving like {active, twice}

[Roger Lipscombe]

On 9 September 2014 08:54, Ingela Andin <ingela.andin@REDACTED> wrote:
> If Ranch uses a pool of accept sockets it is possible that you
> you are seeing an inheritance bug in ssl that is fixed in 17.

We are using a pool of accept sockets; but I would have thought that
the fact that we've been around the loop and set {active, once} before
this happens means that we're not getting bitten by this?

Do you have a link to the fix in 17?

> I would say that from an OTP view of things, the normal way to handle socket
> messages is with active once.

We are using {active, once}; can you point to an example of an OTP
application that handles messages across multiple packets? I'm pretty
sure that I can sort this out by using {active, true} and using
selective receive, but I'd like to see an example with {active, once}.

> From a supervisor and code upgrading perspective you do usually not want
> black a process in a recv call.

Surely that's {active, true}, or am I missing something?

Regards,
Roger.