[erlang-questions] comparison with opensaf

[Ola Andersson A]

I have implemented parts of the SAF specifications in Erlang. IMM is definitely one of the most ridiculously overcomplicated specifications I have seen.
My hat off to the developers of OpenSAF for successfully creating a working implementation in C. It's hard enough to do it in Erlang but it must have been a nightmare developing in C. I haven't checked how many LOC it is but I'm guessing it's a lot.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED [mailto:erlang-questions-
> bounces@REDACTED] On Behalf Of Sashan Govender
> Sent: den 24 juli 2016 06:38
> To: Eric des Courtis <Eric.desCourtis@REDACTED>
> Cc: Erlang <erlang-questions@REDACTED>
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] comparison with opensaf
> 
> I couldn't agree more. The amount of documentation doesn't correlate with
> quality, and yes I think OpenSAF is over engineered, to say the least.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Eric des Courtis
> <Eric.desCourtis@REDACTED> wrote:
> > Personally I think it's complicated for nothing.   The amount of
> > documentation has nothing to do with how well it is documented. If you
> > have to read 500 pages to understand what a supervisor does that seems
> > like massive over engineering.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 8:46 PM Sashan Govender <sashang@REDACTED>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not sure which documentation set you saw but the one over here looks
> >> quite detailed. The AMF documentation alone is 500 pages.
> >>
> >> http://devel.opensaf.org/SAI-AIS-AMF-B.04.01.AL.pdf
> >>
> >> AMF as far as I can tell is like the OTP supervisor process.
> >>
> >> In terms of industry applications I know it's used in Ericsson's DSC
> >> (Diameter Signalling Controller).
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Eric des Courtis
> >> <Eric.desCourtis@REDACTED> wrote:
> >> > This is a very hard question to answer because I would say OpenSAF
> >> > is rather obscure. But I can tell you that while there are some
> >> > overlaps between the two technologies particularly when it comes
> >> > design patterns. The fact that Erlang is done entirely from the
> >> > ground up (language, runtime, otp patterns
> >> > etc...) specifically for high availability means that you should in
> >> > theory experience much less friction when designing this sort of
> >> > system in Erlang.
> >> >
> >> > My feeling from looking at the documentation is that this isn't
> >> > well documented. In short I wouldn't consider is competition to
> >> > Erlang in it's current state for any project.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Sashan Govender
> >> > <sashang@REDACTED>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm interested if anyone has done a comparison the Erlang OTP and
> >> >> OpenSAF.
> >> >> It seems to me there is a significant amount of overlap in the but
> >> >> I don't have the expertise in both systems to form a comprehensive
> >> >> picture. As far as I can tell mnesia is like OpenSAF IMM. They can
> >> >> both be used as configuration databases for a cluster. They both
> >> >> are strongly consistent. I know IMM certainly favours consistency
> >> >> over availabilty. OTP is obviously in Erlang while OpenSAF is in
> >> >> C/C++. Any comparisons out there about these two systems? Or am I
> >> >> wildly off the mark thinking that they are similar?
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> 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