couch_db_update_notifier_sup started as worker?

[Eric Carlson <er...@ericcarlson.co.uk>]

 Having once been the kind of child who takes their toys apart in order
to figure out how they work, and also having been a Prolog hacker in one
of my former lives, I've foolishly started to go through the Erlang code
for CouchDB (with the hope that I might one day be able to contribute
something more useful to the project than merely verifying that release
candidates build successfully ;-) ). In walking through what happens at
application startup I found that couch_db_update_notifier_sup (a
supervisor behaviour) is started as a worker process in
couch_server_sup:start_secondary_services/0. Since I cannot (yet) claim
to fully understand the world of OTP behaviours, I don't know how much
this matters, but in case it does, I thought it worth bringing to the
attention of those of you who know more than I do.

Cheers,
Eric

Re: couch_db_update_notifier_sup started as worker?

[Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>]

On Aug 21, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Eric Carlson wrote:

> Having once been the kind of child who takes their toys apart in order
> to figure out how they work, and also having been a Prolog hacker in one
> of my former lives, I've foolishly started to go through the Erlang code
> for CouchDB (with the hope that I might one day be able to contribute
> something more useful to the project than merely verifying that release
> candidates build successfully ;-) ). In walking through what happens at
> application startup I found that couch_db_update_notifier_sup (a
> supervisor behaviour) is started as a worker process in
> couch_server_sup:start_secondary_services/0. Since I cannot (yet) claim
> to fully understand the world of OTP behaviours, I don't know how much
> this matters, but in case it does, I thought it worth bringing to the
> attention of those of you who know more than I do.
> 
> Cheers,
> Eric
> 

Hi Eric, thanks.  I've noticed this before too.  It doesn't seem to be a huge deal at the moment, but it is something that should be corrected eventually, along with a handful of other OTP oddities.  Best,

Adam