[erlang-questions] Is it safe to unlink from gen_fsm on the fly?
Wed Sep 23 19:43:26 CEST 2009
> If you have the reconnection process always running, do you need to spawn it
> and pass it around?
No, I don't =)
> That said, you might be able to invert the scenario. What if it was a
> gen_event? They you could just throw off a synchronous event when you have
> a disconnection, and it could catch it to reconnect.
Which of the previously mentioned processes (gen_server, connector)
are you suggesting to be implemented as a gen_event?
Could you explain the picture with gen_event being used anyway in a
bit more details?
Assuming the connector is implemented as a gen_event, supervision
three should have one of the two following forms (hope, spaces won't
be skipped by ezmlm):
a) [iface] and [connector] are both linked to the supervisor:
[iface gen_server] [connector gen_event]
b) connector is linked to the iface which in turn is linked to the supervisor:
Is any of those the solution you had in mind while writing about gen_event?
P.S. I have one more solution to note that hasn't been touched yet:
there is only one process - gen_server - trying to reconnect every
?TIME ms by handling messages sent using erlang:send_after(?TIME,
self(), reconnect). This way to reconnect can be considered as
"partially" blocking, because the gen_server is still able to react on
incoming message between 'reconnect' events. It's only useful when
connect() is relative fast.
More information about the erlang-questions