[erlang-questions] hierarchical behaviour doesn't seem to work ?

Harald Welte laforge@REDACTED
Wed Dec 14 18:36:32 CET 2011

Hi Vance,

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 01:25:40PM +0530, Vance Shipley wrote:

> I wrote a howto article on this a few years ago:
> 	http://www.trapexit.org/Cascading_Behaviours

ah, i see.

> Yes, you need to define these functions in your module.  Your
> client may extend these itself and/or pass them on to my_bahaviour.

I've meanwhile found a solution to solve the problem.   I was thinking
the "wrong way around".  What I need to do is I need to call
gen_server:start_link(), and tell in the init arguments which specific
implementation it should use (my_behaviour), which then needs to get
passed the name of the actual module (client) into its init() argument

> Cascading behaviours wasn't anticipated in the design and, aside
> from me, very few people have used that design pattern.

At least when it comes to public Erlang code, it seems like that.

And yes, the question was in fact related to signerl and the way how
tcap_tco_server extends gen_server, and my osmo_sccp_tcap then provides
the callbacks to tcap_tco_server.

Things seem to be coming along quite OK for remotely-initiated
transactions.  I'm now working on locally-initiated transactions, where
TC-BEGIN is coming from the TCAP user side.  I hope to have signerl/TCAP
working fully in the next two weeks.

- Harald Welte <laforge@REDACTED>           http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list