hello Michael,<div><br></div><div>you're assuming right (separate VM), I'm familiar with links and monitors, thank you. However I doubt that any message is sent from a dying process if the VM on which it runs actually blows up. That was my point.</div>
<div><br></div><div>r.</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Michael Truog <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mjtruog@gmail.com" target="_blank">mjtruog@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Assuming you have the 2 layers in separate Erlang VMs. You can have
the Erlang VMs connected with distributed Erlang, and have the twin
processes monitoring each other. If you wanted a simple process
death if either died, you could consider using a link instead of 2
monitors. However, that seems like the simplest solution, to avoid
unnecessary complexity. You might find strangeness if you start not
using the default net tick time (i.e., with a process link inbetween
nodes), with distributed Erlang, but you probably know it is best to
not play with that.<div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div>