[erlang-questions] question re. message delivery

[Matthias Lang]

> > For #1 and #2, I don't think it's good to describe the solution as
> > "implement one's own message passing protocol on top of Erlang's".
> > The failure is quite specific, you get all messages up to the crash
> > and then you get none after that. It's not the message passing that's
> > the problem.

> Of course it is.  If one wants reliable packet delivery, one implements TCP
> (or equivalent) above raw IP.  If one wants reliable email, one implements a
> return receipt function.  Etc.

Ok, so I think what you mean is that you want the scheme the FAQ
(question 10.9) describes as "Super-safe". Right?

You can't implement that as a change to the message passing. One way
to see that is to consider what would happen if you used TCP to send
your message from one erlang process to another instead of using
message passing---the reason this is different to "Super-safe" is that
the ack gets sent before processing.

Matt