[erlang-questions] Purpose of supervising temporary children?

Anthony Shipman als@REDACTED
Fri Feb 26 09:23:11 CET 2010

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:51:03 am Garrett Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:26 AM, David Mercer <dmercer@REDACTED> wrote:
> > What is the purpose of supervising temporary children?  I know you're not
> > supposed to have rogue unsupervised processes running around in your OTP
> > system, but is there that much danger in having such rogue processes if
> > they are linked to supervised processes?  Is the supervisory role just
> > smoothing off some of the rough corner cases of plain old linked
> > processes, or is there more to it than that?
> In the case of simple_one_for_one, you get house keeping -- a
> temporary process will be automatically removed from the supervisor's
> list of children when it terminates, regardless of exit status. This
> lets you use the supervisor as both a factory and an inventory
> (which_children) of a certain type/category of process.
> I've gotten into the habit of religiously using supervisors to create
> processes. There's probably more advanced patterns, but I find my code
> can get messy with process management tasks when I don't use
> supervisors.
> Garrett
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:erlang-questions-unsubscribe@REDACTED

Also the live code update can only find supervised processes.

Anthony Shipman                    Mamas don't let your babies 
als@REDACTED                   grow up to be outsourced.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list