[erlang-questions] terminate supervisor from it's child process

[block.rxckin.beats@REDACTED]

in that case, is child of udp_sup "permanent" or "temporary" ?

if temporary, udp_sup seems ignore udp_worker's terminate, and proto_sup still alive. 

if permanent, udp_sup try to restart child which I don't expected. and if *failed to restart* udp_sup will terminate.

so, you mean, "fail to restart permanent  udp_worker(which unexpected) will terminate udp_sup eventually in one_for_all" is correct way to terminate supervisor from its child?

thanks
Jxck

2019/02/15 2:09、Vance Shipley <vances@REDACTED>のメール:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM block.rxckin.beats@REDACTED
> <block.rxckin.beats@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> No, I meant:
>>>    udp_sup
>>>         -> udp_worker
>>>         -> proto_sup
>>>              -> dtls_woker
>>>              -> stun_worker
>>>              -> srtp_worker
>> 
>> in that case,
>> udp_worker can terminate proto_sup
>> but who terminate udp_sup ?
> 
> No, udp_sup terminates proto_sup. Use a one_for_all strategy on
> udp_sup. When udp_worker exits all the others are terminated by the
> supervisors.
> 
> -- 
>     -Vance