[erlang-questions] What is the point of Spawn(Node, Fun) if Node has to have the same module loadable as a client node?

Alex Arnon <>
Wed Sep 7 12:15:27 CEST 2016


I know we have an AST, my question should have been phrased "would the
Erlang AST itself be appropriate?".
Would it be appropriate in the scenario, where peer servers ship fun
invocations around, without the need for security checks and constraints?

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe <>
wrote:

>
>
> On 6/09/16 5:23 PM, Alex Arnon wrote:
>
>> Would an Erlang AST do it?
>>
>
> You missed the point.
> We *have* an Erlang AST.
> That can, of necessity, express ANYTHING that Erlang can.
> The great benefit of a mini-language is that it CAN'T.
> In general, such a mini-language
>
>     is a *scrutible* data structure in which general
>>     Bad Things simply aren't expressible
>>
>
> Accepting code from a remote source is always a risk,
> UNLESS it is tightly constrained so that you KNOW even
> before you look that it can't be so very bad.
> For example, if you want to write some sort of
> distributed game, and have players send "scripts" for
> their pieces to a game server, you want to KNOW that
> the scripts execute in bounded time and can only do
> game-related stuff.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20160907/52ab0f51/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list