[erlang-questions] Idea for deprecating EPMD

zxq9 zxq9@REDACTED
Wed Dec 9 11:42:16 CET 2015

On 2015年12月8日 火曜日 15:57:06 Geoff Cant wrote:
> Erlang node names already encode host information —
>descriptive_name@REDACTED’. If we include the erlang distribution
> listen port too, that would remove the need for EPMD. For example:
>descriptive_name@REDACTED:distribution_port’. Node names using this
> scheme would skip the EPMD step, otherwise erlang distribution would
> fall back to the current system.
> My questions for the list are:
> * Are you annoyed by epmd too?
> * Do you think this idea is worth me writing up into an EEP or writing
>   a pull request?
> * Do you think this idea is unworkable for some reason I’m overlooking?

I'm guilty of not really considering an alternative (so many other things
I deal with more often). But yeah, now that I think of it, that is sort
of annoying.

This is a nice idea, and might even be nicer if it were taken a step
further and represented Erlang nodes according to a for-real URI scheme:


or something along those lines. There is probably some reason the example
above is silly, and maybe "epmd" isn't the best name for the protocol, but
you get the idea. I think normalizing that in the way so many other services
are normalized would be a big win, and would also allow implementations of
"compatible nodes" that weren't ad-hoc libraries.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list