The original solutions is also synchronous,
because as you wrote:
- we call it and don't know when Adapter:action/2 is called,
- then we DON'T go to the next function - we are waiting for the response.
There is not a single action between spawning new process and waiting for
it to return,
which makes it synchronous.
It is wasteful to spawn process to do the synchronous job.
As I can see in the file history, it also introduced a bug,
where parent process received {'EXIT', normal} before actual message.
It is cool to know, that this is possible!
W dniu sobota, 25 stycznia 2014 01:46:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Cuong Thai
napisał:
>
> Hi,
>
> The original call_controller_action is asynchronous. We call it and don't
> know when Adapter:action/2 is called, then go next function.
> Your suggestion is synchronous. You go next function, only after
> Adapter:action/2 has called.
>
> Regards,
> Cuong Th.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ChicagoBoss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chicagoboss.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chicagoboss/b32694ff-21d7-4035-bf75-179c71f77b02%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
