[erlang-questions] terminate supervisor from it's child process
block.rxckin.beats@REDACTED
block.rxckin.beats@REDACTED
Fri Feb 15 00:23:08 CET 2019
in that case, is child of udp_sup "permanent" or "temporary" ?
if temporary, udp_sup seems ignore udp_worker's terminate, and proto_sup still alive.
if permanent, udp_sup try to restart child which I don't expected. and if *failed to restart* udp_sup will terminate.
so, you mean, "fail to restart permanent udp_worker(which unexpected) will terminate udp_sup eventually in one_for_all" is correct way to terminate supervisor from its child?
thanks
Jxck
2019/02/15 2:09、Vance Shipley <vances@REDACTED>のメール:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM block.rxckin.beats@REDACTED
> <block.rxckin.beats@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> No, I meant:
>>> udp_sup
>>> -> udp_worker
>>> -> proto_sup
>>> -> dtls_woker
>>> -> stun_worker
>>> -> srtp_worker
>>
>> in that case,
>> udp_worker can terminate proto_sup
>> but who terminate udp_sup ?
>
> No, udp_sup terminates proto_sup. Use a one_for_all strategy on
> udp_sup. When udp_worker exits all the others are terminated by the
> supervisors.
>
> --
> -Vance
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list