[英]Why can you create multiple monitor references to the same process in Erlang?
Here is an example trace where I'm able to call erlang:monitor/2
on the same Pid: 这是一个示例跟踪,我可以在同一个Pid上调用erlang:monitor/2
:
1> Loop = fun F() -> F() end.
#Fun<erl_eval.30.99386804>
2> Pid = spawn(Loop).
<0.71.0>
3> erlang:monitor(process, Pid).
#Ref<0.2485499597.1470627842.126937>
4> erlang:monitor(process, Pid).
#Ref<0.2485499597.1470627842.126942>
5> erlang:monitor(process, Pid).
#Ref<0.2485499597.1470627842.126947>
The expressions returned by instruction #4 and #5 are different than #3, meaning that it is possible to create multiple monitor references between the current process and Pid
. 指令#4和#5返回的表达式与#3不同,这意味着可以在当前进程和Pid
之间创建多个监视器引用。 Is there a practical case where you would need or use multiple monitor references to the same process? 是否存在需要或使用同一进程的多个监视器引用的实际案例?
I would expect this to return the same reference (returning a new one would perhaps imply that the old one had failed/crashed), following the same logic that exists for link/1
. 我希望这会返回相同的引用(返回一个新的可能意味着旧的一个失败/崩溃),遵循与link/1
相同的逻辑。
Imagine you use third party library which does this (basically what OTP *:call/*
functions does): 想象一下,您使用第三方库来执行此操作(基本上是OTP *:call/*
函数所做的):
call(Pid, Request) ->
call(Pid, Request, ?DEFAULT_TIMEOUT).
call(Pid, Request, Timeout) ->
MRef = erlang:monitor(process, Pid),
Pid ! {call, self(), MRef, Request},
receive
{answer, MRef, Result} ->
erlang:demonitor(Mref, [flush]),
{ok, Result};
{'DOWN', MRef, _, _, Info} ->
{error, Info}
after Timeout ->
erlang:demonitor(MRef, [flush]),
{error, timeout}
end.
and then you use it in your code where you would monitor the same process Pid
and then call function call/2,3
. 然后你在你的代码中使用它,你将监视相同的进程Pid
,然后调用函数call/2,3
。
my_fun1(Service) ->
MRef = erlang:monitor(process, Service),
ok = check_if_service_runs(MRef),
my_fun2(Service),
mind_my_stuf(),
ok = check_if_service_runs(MRef),
erlang:demonitor(MRef, [flush]),
return_some_result().
check_if_service_runs(MRef) ->
receive
{'DOWN', MRef, _, _, Info} -> {down, Info}
after 0 -> ok
end.
my_fun2(S) -> my_fun3(S).
% and a many layers of other stuff and modules
my_fun3(S) -> call(S, hello).
What a nasty surprise it would be if erlang:monitor/2,3
would always return the same reference and if erlang:demonitor/1,2
would remove your previous monitor. 如果erlang:monitor/2,3
总会返回相同的引用,如果erlang:demonitor/1,2
会删除你以前的显示器,那将是多么令人讨厌的惊喜。 It would be a source of ugly and unsolvable bugs. 它将是丑陋和无法解决的错误的来源。 You should start to think that there are libraries, other processes, your code is part of a huge system and Erlang was made by experienced people who thought it through. 您应该开始认为有库,其他进程,您的代码是庞大系统的一部分,而Erlang是由经验丰富的人制作的。 Maintainability is key here. 可维护性是关键。
声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.