[erlang-questions] Other supervisor implementations?

[Alex S.]

> 23 нояб. 2016 г., в 13:50, Oliver Korpilla <Oliver.Korpilla@REDACTED> написал(а):
> 
> Hello.
> 
> I was left with the impression that restart on error - like with "transient" - was also not available. Only the equivalent of "temporary".
> 
> Regards,
> Oliver
That is not true, permanent and transient restarts are still possible. MFArgs are kept in a dictionary keyed by PID, so when the exit signal is received, the process is restarted.
I’ve used it myself, and it works like a charm.
> 
> On November 23, 2016 10:38:54 AM CET, "Alex S." <alex0player@REDACTED> wrote:
> 23 нояб. 2016 г., в 10:19, Oliver Korpilla <Oliver.Korpilla@REDACTED> написал(а):
>  
>  Hello.
>  
>  I asked some questions about the various supervisors available in OTP a while ago. The impression I was left with is that once you have to go dynamic/simple_one_for_one you essentially lose most features you'd want out of supervision.
> With simple_one_for_one you lose only in-order termination (and indeed, there’s no semantic order you can impose on the children, as the order of launch is accidental and subject to races),
> and the ability to launch an arbitrary child spec. That’s about it.
> (The upgrades might also suck if you decide to completely change the childspec: your children will need to handle the upgrade themselves somehow.)
>  
>  Are there any other, alternate supervisor implementations out there to extend the range of options?
>  
>  Thank you,
>  Oliver

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20161123/c0763ec9/attachment.htm>