[erlang-questions] [Code Review] Is this a good idea? I linking 3 process manually (not using recursive)
bengt
cean.ebengt@REDACTED
Sat Mar 16 15:23:42 CET 2019
Greetings,
If the intention is to always run these functions manually, one by one, then it is okay. If you want to be able to do this:
procslinked:starter(), procslinked:call_the_third().
you might get into trouble since you send init_done before you spawn the next process. Add a timer:sleep(60000) right before every spawn_link( )
and you will see the problem.
One solution is to send init_done after spawn_link().
Best Wishes,
bengt
> On 13 Mar 2019, at 08:46, I Gusti Ngurah Oka Prinarjaya <okaprinarjaya@REDACTED> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is my updated code: https://pastebin.com/D9SAPUG8 <https://pastebin.com/D9SAPUG8> please review again.
>
> Please give me the pseudo code clue if there's more incorrectness to fix in my code.
>
> And this is the output when i run my erlang program
>
> Erlang/OTP 21 [erts-10.2] [source] [64-bit] [smp:4:4] [ds:4:4:10] [async-threads:1]
>
> Eshell V10.2 (abort with ^G)
> 1> c(procslinked).
> Recompiling /Users/okaprinarjaya/Oprek/Erlang-Oprek/oprek-lagi/src/procslinked.erl
> /Users/okaprinarjaya/Oprek/Erlang-Oprek/oprek-lagi/src/procslinked.erl:2: Warning: export_all flag enabled - all functions will be exported
> {ok,procslinked}
> 2> procslinked:starter().
> Receive init_done from P1
> Receive init_done from P2
> Receive init_done from P3
> {<0.91.0>,okbeud}
> 3> procslinked:call_the_first().
> {<0.91.0>,"the_first_p()","Halo first p!"}
> 4> procslinked:call_the_second().
> {<0.92.0>,"the_second_p()","Halo second p!"}
> 5> procslinked:call_the_third().
> {<0.93.0>,"the_third_p()","Halo third p!"}
> 6> procslinked:call_the_first().
> {<0.91.0>,"the_first_p()","Halo first p!"}
> 7> procslinked:call_the_second().
> {<0.92.0>,"the_second_p()","Halo second p!"}
> 8> procslinked:call_the_third().
> {<0.93.0>,"the_third_p()","Halo third p!"}
> 9>
>
> Thank you :)
>
>
>
>
>
> Pada tanggal Sel, 12 Mar 2019 pukul 02.13 bengt <cean.ebengt@REDACTED <mailto:cean.ebengt@REDACTED>> menulis:
> Greetings,
>
> The race is that starter/0 will return before any of the three processes have started. If you add a timer:sleep( 60000 ) before the calls to register/0 you will see this even if you do call_the_first/0 manually.
>
> The pseudo code would be
> My_pid = erlang:self(),
> P = spawn(?MODULE, the_first_p, [My_pid]),
> receive
> {P, init_done} -> ok
> end.
>
> And then sending {erlang:self(), init_done} to My_pid (the process that started the_first_p).
>
>
>> On 11 Mar 2019, at 12:03, I Gusti Ngurah Oka Prinarjaya <okaprinarjaya@REDACTED <mailto:okaprinarjaya@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andreas Schultz,
>>
>> >> The reason is that there is no guarantee that `call_the_third()` will be executed after any of the spawn has succeeded or the register was invoked.
>> 1. Did you mean this code? https://pastebin.com/ECf3jhZ2 <https://pastebin.com/ECf3jhZ2>
>> 2. and did you mean spawn_link/3 and register/2 is racy?
>> 3. I've test this code many times, and never get error in each call_the_* function, even call_the_third/0 function.
>>
>> Here: https://learnyousomeerlang.com/the-hitchhikers-guide-to-concurrency <https://learnyousomeerlang.com/the-hitchhikers-guide-to-concurrency>, and here: https://learnyousomeerlang.com/more-on-multiprocessing <https://learnyousomeerlang.com/more-on-multiprocessing> and
>> here: https://learnyousomeerlang.com/errors-and-processes <https://learnyousomeerlang.com/errors-and-processes> teach me to do that. Oh My God, where in this earth i can read the best erlang process tutorial ? so i can use erlang in the right way.
>>
>> >> In order to get ordering guarantees you need to wait for the processes to be past the init stage.
>> >> The normal way to do that is to wait for a message from the init function of you child process.
>> Please give me a short pseudo-code clue to do this. I do really shocked because of this code: https://pastebin.com/ECf3jhZ2 <https://pastebin.com/ECf3jhZ2> still not correct after 2 times revision.
>>
>> Thank you :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Pada tanggal Sen, 11 Mar 2019 pukul 14.55 Andreas Schultz <andreas.schultz@REDACTED <mailto:andreas.schultz@REDACTED>> menulis:
>> You do realize that your code is still "racy" ?
>>
>> Invoking it like
>>
>> 2> procslinked:starter(), procslinked:call_the_third().
>>
>> has a good chance of not producing the expected result. Most times it will simply fail with:
>>
>> ** exception error: bad argument
>> in function procslinked:call_the_third/0 (procslinked.erl, line 54)
>>
>> The reason is that there is no guarantee that `call_the_third()` will be executed after any of the spawn has succeeded or the register was invoked.
>> In order to get ordering guarantees you need to wait for the processes to be past the init stage. The normal way to do that is to wait for a message from the init function of you child process.
>>
>> BTW: this is exactly what proc_lib:init_ack does, but I guess you are trying to implement that yourself as a learning exercise.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> I Gusti Ngurah Oka Prinarjaya <okaprinarjaya@REDACTED <mailto:okaprinarjaya@REDACTED>> schrieb am So., 10. März 2019 um 23:38 Uhr:
>> Hi Bengt,
>>
>> Thank you very much for all of your hints and suggestions. It's clear now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pada tanggal Sen, 11 Mar 2019 05.20, bengt <cean.ebengt@REDACTED <mailto:cean.ebengt@REDACTED>> menulis:
>> I think your code is about learning erlang. Do that first. OTP is the next step.
>>
>> Yes, splitting a gen_server into callback module and interface module is not the OTP way (as described in documentation), so while good for a beginner it can be considered bad style by experienced programmers.
>>
>> Sorry, but I have not seen any tutorial about how to avoid thinking the same function/module is always in the same process. It is a very fundamental concept (them not being) in Erlang, so just keep it in mind. One way would be to try and make all your three functions the same function, just have different arguments to the loop. Then you must think about it.
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Mar 2019, at 11:11, I Gusti Ngurah Oka Prinarjaya <okaprinarjaya@REDACTED <mailto:okaprinarjaya@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Bengt,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your review :)
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand with some of your thought. Then i hope you not mind to give more explanation.
>>>
>>> >> Seasoned Erlang programmers will tell you this is not the OTP way, or a waste of modules
>>> Did you mean my code here: https://pastebin.com/ECf3jhZ2 <https://pastebin.com/ECf3jhZ2> wasn't the OTP way?
>>> I learn from here: https://learnyousomeerlang.com/errors-and-processes <https://learnyousomeerlang.com/errors-and-processes> and i do really a beginner at programming with erlang.
>>>
>>> >> So only do this until you have a better understanding.
>>> What is that? Did you mean doing one module with the interface functions to a gen_server and one module for the gen_server callbacks.?
>>> or what?
>>>
>>> >> Conflating the function (or even more often, module) and the process is a common mistake in the beginning. When my fellow programmers are experienced, but not used >> to process oriented programming.
>>> Any tutorials / reference for me to avoid this mistake ?
>>>
>>> Thank you :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pada tanggal Min, 10 Mar 2019 pukul 14.49 bengt <cean.ebengt@REDACTED <mailto:cean.ebengt@REDACTED>> menulis:
>>> Conflating the function (or even more often, module) and the process is a common mistake in the beginning. When my fellow programmers are experienced, but not used to process oriented programming, I have found that it helps to put the code that is run in different process in different modules. Ex: one module with the interface functions to a gen_server and one module for the gen_server callbacks. Seasoned Erlang programmers will tell you this is not the OTP way, or a waste of modules. So only do this until you have a better understanding.
>>>
>>> bengt
>>>
>>>> On 10 Mar 2019, at 04:57, I Gusti Ngurah Oka Prinarjaya <okaprinarjaya@REDACTED <mailto:okaprinarjaya@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bengt,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the idea,
>>>>
>>>> I've implement your idea, from performance side, i think using two version of function will have better performance because there's no need to checking using IF statement.
>>>>
>>>> I worry at first to implement this idea, because i think different version of function will have different PID, hahaha it turns out exactly have same PID.
>>>> this is my new code https://pastebin.com/ECf3jhZ2 <https://pastebin.com/ECf3jhZ2> . Please review if there's any improvement needs.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pada tanggal Min, 10 Mar 2019 pukul 05.23 bengt <cean.ebengt@REDACTED <mailto:cean.ebengt@REDACTED>> menulis:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> The error happens the second time any of the three processes call erlang:register/2. They already registered themselves the first time. If you want this structure, but not the error, you have to do the register before starting the loop. Eg, split the functions into two. One that do the register and then calls the second that does the loop.
>>>>
>>>> bengt
>>>>
>>>>> On 9 Mar 2019, at 14:41, I Gusti Ngurah Oka Prinarjaya <okaprinarjaya@REDACTED <mailto:okaprinarjaya@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Attila Rajmund Nohl,
>>>>>
>>>>> After i implement your suggestion, i get error when execute any of function call_the_*_p()
>>>>> for example:
>>>>>
>>>>> 3> newbie:starter().
>>>>> <0.112.0>
>>>>> 4> newbie:call_the_second().
>>>>> =ERROR REPORT==== 9-Mar-2019::20:35:15.069388 ===
>>>>> Error in process <0.113.0> with exit value:
>>>>> {badarg,[{erlang,register,[pidsecondp,<0.113.0>],[]},
>>>>> {newbie,the_second_p,0,
>>>>> [{file,"/Users/okaprinarjaya/Oprek/Erlang-Oprek/oprek-lagi/src/newbie.erl"},
>>>>> {line,17}]}]}
>>>>>
>>>>> {<0.113.0>,"the_second_p()","Halo second p!"}
>>>>>
>>>>> This is my new modified code https://pastebin.com/iYCxkkuz <https://pastebin.com/iYCxkkuz>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pada tanggal Jum, 8 Mar 2019 pukul 21.03 Attila Rajmund Nohl <attila.r.nohl@REDACTED <mailto:attila.r.nohl@REDACTED>> menulis:
>>>>> I Gusti Ngurah Oka Prinarjaya <okaprinarjaya@REDACTED <mailto:okaprinarjaya@REDACTED>> ezt írta
>>>>> (időpont: 2019. márc. 8., P, 12:11):
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi Folks,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I need your help to review my code. I create and linking 3 process manually without using recursive. And inside p1 and p2 i using IF statement to check to make sure spawning process will only once.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I mean, is part code below is a good idea?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > IsPidExists = whereis(xxx),
>>>>> > if IsPidExists =:= undefined ->
>>>>> > Pid = spawn_link(?MODULE, the_p, []),
>>>>> > register(xxx, Pid);
>>>>> > true -> true
>>>>> > end,
>>>>>
>>>>> Generally this is not a good idea, there's a race condition between
>>>>> checking that the process is registered (the whereis/1 call) and
>>>>> registering the new process. A better idea is to start the process and
>>>>> let the process itself to register. If register fails, it means that
>>>>> there's already a process registered, so the just started process can
>>>>> terminate. So your code could look like something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> starter() ->
>>>>> spawn(?MODULE, the_first_p, []).
>>>>>
>>>>> the_first_p() ->
>>>>> register(pidfirstp, self()),
>>>>> spawn_link(?MODULE, the_second_p, []),
>>>>> ...
>>>>> the_first_p().
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually if the register call fails, it throws a badarg and the
>>>>> process dies automatically, simplifying the code.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>>>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>> --
>> --
>> Dipl.-Inform. Andreas Schultz
>>
>> ----------------------- enabling your networks ----------------------
>> Travelping GmbH Phone: +49-391-81 90 99 0
>> Roentgenstr. 13 Fax: +49-391-81 90 99 299
>> 39108 Magdeburg Email: info@REDACTED <mailto:info@REDACTED>
>> GERMANY Web: http://www.travelping.com <http://www.travelping.com/>
>>
>> Company Registration: Amtsgericht Stendal Reg No.: HRB 10578
>> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Holger Winkelmann VAT ID No.: DE236673780
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20190316/a8f42638/attachment.htm>
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list