http://disqus.com/people/a418383766da82e0697acd19cf851ea0/enMon, 14 Jul 2008 11:49:48 -0000http://20bits.disqus.com/erlang_a_generalized_tcp_server_20bits/#comment-3793626You should probably explain why with the echo server up and running,<br>compiling echo_server.erl twice in a row kills the server.<br><br>This is really frustrating to someone coming from lisp where<br>hot code updates trully "just work" and things do not fail<br>mysteriously. I have been trying to find out the cause of<br>this behavior for the past hour with no success.mikeSun, 13 Jul 2008 21:11:01 -0000http://20bits.disqus.com/erlang_a_generalized_tcp_server_20bits/#comment-3793627Ok so apparently erlang keeps 2 versions of module code (old and current)<br>and processes that run old code are purged (killed). This is badly<br>explained almost everywhere i've looked and examples are scarce to come<br>by for something so important. So my next question then is how to<br>do a hot code update without killing the tcp server or dropping any existing<br>connections. After all this is erlang where 99.999% availability can be achieved<br>this trivial task (which you get for free in common lisp without having to do<br>anything special) should be possible.<br><br>After hours of scavenging in badly written documentation, trying to understand<br>the monstrosity that seems to be OTP (also noticed that pragmatic programming: erlang<br>conveniently pushes this issue under the rug) i still have found no solutions. <br>It seems everywhere i look at these days, proponents of erlang keep rambling about<br>"scalability, availability, hot code updates" as if these are things that can be<br>magically gotten for free. Well if "hot code updates" is how things are done in erlang,<br>i will have none of that.mikeMon, 14 Jul 2008 11:49:48 -0000