Hi Michael,
> I would prefer the normal option remain, but with a different name. I agree
> using the name "normal" would be confusing. However, the option should exist
> to mark a supervisor as part of a static supervision hierarchy. There should
> also be error checking to ensure child specs with significant set to true
> cause an error (the value doesn't get silently ignored). The error can be
> used as a return value for supervisor:start_child/2 and would block
> significant use where it is considered inappropriate (some supervisor
> processes would want to always exist as part of a static hierarchy).
Yes, I fully agree :)
> I am not sure about a name instead of "normal" for the option. Alternative
> name ideas for the option are "default", "none", "static", "external".
Thanks for the suggestions, but I think they somewhat miss the point in one way
or another ^^;
As I was already saying in my reply to José Valim, I think it might be better
to rename the sup flag to something like "auto_shutdown", and rename "normal"
to "never". This way, it would be clearer as to what the option refers
(_automated_ shutdown, as opposed to shutdown of any sort), and "never" would
be clearer in that it declares to _never_ do an _automated_ (self-) shutdown.
Kind regards,
Maria Scott
_______________________________________________
eeps mailing list
[email protected]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/eeps
