[erlang-questions] Why not standard OTP behavior
Thu Apr 30 00:08:39 CEST 2015
I found this slide deck useful for explaining the pros and cons of
using OTP behaviours vs. roll-your-own. Loïc might find it familiar
On 29 April 2015 at 12:50, Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:
> In the case of ranch_conns_sup, that's an optimization.
> Before it was a supervisor + gen_server, but the work was kind of duplicated
> (one was using links and the other monitors for the same processes). Now we
> have one process that do both tasks (supervise and limit the number of
> concurrent connections).
> On 04/29/2015 02:38 PM, linbo liao wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> When go through some open source code, I find sometimes processes are
>> not standard OTP behavior like gen_server, gen_fsm, gen_event, but
>> designed by internal OTP API.
>> For example, ranch_conns_sup
>> from ranch, riak_core_vnode_proxy
>> from riak_core.
>> May anyone help to point the reason, why they don't use OTP behavior but
>> build by internal API, any drawback for OTP behavior in a certain
>> erlang-questions mailing list
> Loïc Hoguin
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions