Why does my simple Erlang server not close? - erlang
Source file:
-module(biu_server).
-export([start_server/0]).
start_server() ->
{ok, Listen} = gen_tcp:listen(1332,
[binary, {packet, 4},{reuseaddr, true}, {active, true}]),
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Listen) end).
par_connect(Listen) ->
{ok,Socket} = gen_tcp:accept(Listen),
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Listen) end),
loop(Socket).
loop(Socket) ->
receive
{tcp, Socket, Request} ->
gen_tcp:send(Socket, term_to_binary(Request)),
loop(Socket);
{tcp_closed, Socket} ->
io:format("Server socket closed~n")
end.
Inside shell:
1> c(biu_server).
{ok,biu_server}
2> biu_server:start_server().
<0.40.0>
3> q().
ok
4> {error_logger,{{2016,1,9},{18,40,28}},"Error in process ~p with exit value:~n~p~n",[<0.40.0>,{{badmatch,{error,closed}},[{biu_server,par_connect,1,[{file,"biu_server.erl"},{line,11}]}]}]}
I want to write a echo server, but when I quit erlang shell, the error_logger is warning badmatch, but the client process is already closed.
Why does my server close fail? What happens?
There are a few wonky things in there. The easiest way to talk through them is probably to just show a different version:
-module(biu_server).
-export([start_server/0,start/0]).
start() ->
spawn(fun() -> start_server() end).
start_server() ->
Options = [list, {reuseaddr, true}],
{ok, Listen} = gen_tcp:listen(1337, Options),
par_connect(Listen).
par_connect(Listen) ->
{ok, Socket} = gen_tcp:accept(Listen),
% The line below is a whole different universe of confusion for now.
% Get sequential stuff figured out first.
% spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Listen) end),
loop(Socket).
loop(Socket) ->
ok = inet:setopts(Socket, [{active, once}]),
receive
{tcp, Socket, Request} ->
ok = io:format("Received TCP message: ~tp~n", [Request]),
Response = io_lib:format("You said: ~tp\r\n", [Request]),
gen_tcp:send(Socket, Response),
loop(Socket);
{tcp_closed, Socket} ->
io:format("Server socket closed~n");
quit ->
ok = io:format("Fine! I QUIT!~n");
Unexpected ->
ok = io:format("Unexpected message: ~tp~n", [Unexpected]),
loop(Socket)
end.
Note that above I commented out the call to spawn a new process to handle the connection. One of the problems the original version had was that the remaining listener had no way to be terminated because it was always blocking on TCP accept -- forever.
There are also some socket control issues there -- the easiest way around that is to have each listener spawn the next listener and move on to handle its newly acquired connection. Another way is to do what you've done, but there are some details that need to be managed to make it work smoothly. (Example (don't worry, still easy): https://github.com/zxq9/erlmud/blob/master/erlmud-0.1/tcplistener.erl).
I also added two new clauses to the receive in your main loop: one that lets us tell the process to kill itself from within Erlang, and another that handles unexpected messages from within the system. The "Unexpected" clause is important for two reasons: it tells us what is going on (you shouldn't normally be receiving mysterious messages, but it can happen and its not always your fault), and it prevents the process mailbox from stacking up with unmatched-but-unmanageable messages.
Just sticking with the version above, here is what happens during my first session...
In the Erlang shell:
1> c(biu_server).
{ok,biu_server}
2> {Pid, Ref} = spawn_monitor(biu_server, start_server, []).
{<0.40.0>,#Ref<0.0.2.89>}
Received TCP message: "foo\r\n"
Received TCP message: "bar\r\n"
Received TCP message: "Yay! It works!\r\n"
Server socket closed
3> flush().
Shell got {'DOWN',#Ref<0.0.2.89>,process,<0.40.0>,normal}
ok
4> f().
ok
And in a telnet session:
ceverett#changa:~/Code/erlang$ telnet localhost 1337
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
foo
You said: "foo\r\n"
bar
You said: "bar\r\n"
Yay! It works!
You said: "Yay! It works!\r\n"
^]
telnet> quit
Connection closed.
As we can see, the closed connection from the client side terminated as expected. The shell's process was monitoring the TCP server process, so when I flush() at the end we see the 'DOWN' monitor message as expected -- with a normal exit.
Now let's do a similar session, but we'll use the Erlang-side quit message:
5> {Pid, Ref} = spawn_monitor(biu_server, start_server, []).
{<0.43.0>,#Ref<0.0.2.103>}
Received TCP message: "Still works.\r\n"
6> Pid ! "Launch the missiles!".
Unexpected message: "Launch the missiles!"
"Launch the missiles!"
7> Pid ! quit.
Fine! I QUIT!
quit
8> flush().
Shell got {'DOWN',#Ref<0.0.2.103>,process,<0.43.0>,normal}
ok
And on the telnet side:
ceverett#changa:~/Code/erlang$ telnet localhost 1337
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
Still works.
You said: "Still works.\r\n"
Connection closed by foreign host.
You notice the "\r\n" in there. That is coming from the client's original message -- all telnet messages are terminated with "\r\n" (so this is what you split the stream on usually -- which is a topic we aren't addressing yet; this code actually is pretending that TCP works like UDP datagrams, but that's not true...). The "\r\n" that are in the server's return message are being interpreted correctly by the telnet client and breaking to the next line.
Writing telnet (or datagram) games is a very pleasant way to explore the Erlang networking modules, by the way.
i solve this question,but i don't know why...
http://erlang.2086793.n4.nabble.com/parallel-tcp-server-closed-once-spawned-td2099538.html
code:
-module(biu_server).
-export([start_server/0,start/0]).
start() ->
spawn(fun() -> start_server() end).
start_server() ->
{ok, Listen} = gen_tcp:listen(1332,
[binary, {packet, 4},{reuseaddr, true}, {active, true}]),
par_connect(Listen).
par_connect(Listen) ->
{ok,Socket} = gen_tcp:accept(Listen),
spawn(fun() -> par_connect(Listen) end),
loop(Socket).
loop(Socket) ->
receive
{tcp, Socket, Request} ->
gen_tcp:send(Socket, term_to_binary(Request)),
loop(Socket);
{tcp_closed, Socket} ->
io:format("Server socket closed~n")
end.
When you call q() from shell, it calls init:stop/0. What it does based on documentation is:
All applications are taken down smoothly, all code is unloaded, and all ports are closed before the system terminates.
When you call start_server/0, it spawns a process and that process opens a port for TCP connection. Because you start your server from inside the shell, so it is linked to the shell, so when the shell gets an exit signal, it sends it again to all the linked processes, then the following error report will be produced by the error_logger module.
1> biu:start_server().
<0.35.0>
2> exit(normal).
=ERROR REPORT==== 9-Jan-2016::16:40:29 ===
Error in process <0.35.0> with exit value: {{badmatch,{error,closed}},[{biu,par_connect,1,[{file,"biu.erl"},{line,12}]}]}
** exception exit: normal
3>
With knowing this, when you call q() before closing the port, all the modules are unloaded and ports are closed one by one, so the unwanted behaviour will result.
Related
Why dont I get any terminal output after hot code loading in Erlang?
While trying to understand how to work with servers and hot code loading I stumbled over a problem which I have stripped down to the following code: server.erl -module(server). -export([start/0, connect/1]). start() -> {ok, Listen} = gen_tcp:listen(8080, [binary, {packet, raw}, {active, true}]), spawn(?MODULE, connect, [Listen]). connect(Listen) -> {ok, Socket} = gen_tcp:accept(Listen), spawn(?MODULE, connect, [Listen]), loop(Socket). loop(Socket) -> receive {tcp, Socket, Data} -> io:format("1st version received ~p~n", [Data]), loop(Socket); {tcp_closed, Socket} -> io:format("socket closed~n") end. client.erl -module(client). -export([request/0]). request() -> {ok, Socket} = gen_tcp:connect("localhost", 8080, [{packet, raw}, binary]), gen_tcp:send(Socket, <<"Hello">>). Starting the server and sending a request creates the expected output. 1> server:start(). <0.62.0> 2> client:request(). ok 1st version received <<"Hello">> After changing the format statement to "2nd version", compiling and loading the code and executing two requests (because the connect/1 process currently waiting for connections was spawned before the change) the result is still as expected. 3> c(server). {ok,server} 4> client:request(). ok 1st version received <<"Hello">> 5> client:request(). ok 2nd version received <<"Hello">> However, after compiling and loading the code twice in a row, there is no output printed in the terminal any more, although the server is obviously still running, since gen_tcp:connect returns a socket. 6> c(server). {ok,server} 7> c(server). {ok,server} 8> client:request(). ok I suspect that this behaviour has something to do with erlang killing all processes with code older than two versions but I fail to really understand what is happening here. Since this is educational I am more interested in knowing why this exact code doesn't work rather than an actual solution to the problem. Thanks
I am pretty certain this is the two-versions limit. If you want to confirm that, replace the calls from spawn(...) to spawn_link(...) -- if the processes die, your shell will crash as well and you'll know they have been killed. Another way to test it is whether you can replace the following: 6> c(server). {ok,server} 7> c(server). {ok,server} 8> client:request(). ok By: 6> c(server). {ok,server} 7> client:request(). ok 8> c(server). {ok,server} 9> client:request(). ok If this works fine, the difference is the message in the middle that allows the code to update to a newer code version of the fully-qualified function call (Module:Fun(Args)), preventing the crash.
Erlang server connecting with ports to send and receive a Json file to a Java application
I have tried to implement a server with Erlang to my Java application. Seems that my server is working, but still full of bugs and dead points. I need to receive a JSON file parsed by the Java application into a map and send it back to all clients, including the one that uploaded the file. Meanwhile, I need to keep track who made the request and which part of the message was sent, in case of any problems the client should be restarted from this point, not from the beginning. Unless the client leaves the application, then it should restart. My three pieces of code will be below: The app.erl -module(erlServer_app). -behaviour(application). %% Application callbacks -export([start/2, stop/1]). %%%=================================================================== %%% Application callbacks %%%=================================================================== start(_StartType, _StartArgs) -> erlServer_sup:start_link(). stop(_State) -> ok. The supervisor.erl: -module(erlServer_sup). -behaviour(supervisor). %% API -export([start_link/0]). %% Supervisor callbacks -export([init/1, start_socket/0, terminate_socket/0, empty_listeners/0]). -define(SERVER, ?MODULE). %%-------------------------------------------------------------------- %% #doc %% Starts the supervisor %% %% #end %%-------------------------------------------------------------------- start_link() -> supervisor:start_link({local, ?SERVER}, ?MODULE, []). %%%=================================================================== %%% Supervisor callbacks %%%=================================================================== init([]) -> % restart strategy 'one_for_one': if one goes down only that one is restarted io:format("starting...~n"), spawn_link(fun() -> empty_listeners() end), {ok, {{one_for_one, 5, 30}, % The flag - 5 restart within 30 seconds [{erlServer_server, {erlServer_server, init, []}, permanent, 1000, worker, [erlServer_server]}]}}. %%%=================================================================== %%% Internal functions %%%=================================================================== start_socket() -> supervisor:start_child(?MODULE, []). terminate_socket() -> supervisor:delete_child(?MODULE, []). empty_listeners() -> [start_socket() || _ <- lists:seq(1,20)], ok. The server.erl:(I have a lot of debugging io:format.) -module(erlServer_server). %% API -export([init/0, start_server/0]). %% Defining the port used. -define(PORT, 8080). %%%=================================================================== %%% API %%%=================================================================== init() -> start_server(). %%%=================================================================== %%% Server callbacks %%%=================================================================== start_server() -> io:format("Server started.~n"), Pid = spawn_link(fun() -> {ok, ServerSocket} = gen_tcp:listen(?PORT, [binary, {packet, 0}, {reuseaddr, true}, {active, true}]), io:format("Baba~p", [ServerSocket]), server_loop(ServerSocket) end), {ok, Pid}. server_loop(ServerSocket) -> io:format("Oba~p", [ServerSocket]), {ok, Socket} = gen_tcp:accept(ServerSocket), Pid1 = spawn(fun() -> client() end), inet:setopts(Socket, [{packet, 0}, binary, {nodelay, true}, {active, true}]), gen_tcp:controlling_process(Socket, Pid1), server_loop(ServerSocket). %%%=================================================================== %%% Internal functions %%%=================================================================== client() -> io:format("Starting client. Enter \'quit\' to exit.~n"), Client = self(), {ok, Sock} = gen_tcp:connect("localhost", ?PORT, [{active, false}, {packet, 2}]), display_prompt(Client), client_loop(Client, Sock). %%%=================================================================== %%% Client callbacks %%%=================================================================== send(Sock, Packet) -> {ok, Sock, Packet} = gen_tcp:send(Sock, Packet), io:format("Sent ~n"). recv(Packet) -> {recv, ok, Packet} = gen_tcp:recv(Packet), io:format("Received ~n"). display_prompt(Client) -> spawn(fun () -> Packet = io:get_line("> "), Client ! {entered, Packet} end), Client ! {requested}, ok. client_loop(Client, Sock) -> receive {entered, "quit\n"} -> gen_tcp:close(Sock); {entered, Packet} -> % When a packet is entered we receive it, recv(Packet), display_prompt(Client), client_loop(Client, Sock); {requested, Packet} -> % When a packet is requested we send it, send(Sock, Packet), display_prompt(Client), client_loop(Client, Sock); {error, timeout} -> io:format("Send timeout, closing!~n", []), Client ! {self(),{error_sending, timeout}}, gen_tcp:close(Sock); {error, OtherSendError} -> io:format("Some other error on socket (~p), closing", [OtherSendError]), Client ! {self(),{error_sending, OtherSendError}}, gen_tcp:close(Sock) end. This is the first server I'm doing and I got lost probably in the middle. When I run it seems to be working, but hanging. Can someone help me? My localhost never loads anything it keeps loading forever. How can my java app receive it from the same port? I MUST use Erlang and I MUST use ports to connect to the java application. Thanks for helping me!
Let's rework this just a little... First up: Naming We don't use camelCase in Erlang. It is confusing because capitalized variable names and lower-case (or single-quoted) atoms mean different things. Also, module names must be the same as file names which causes problems on case-insensitive filesystems. Also, we really want a better name than "server". Server can mean a lot of things in a system like this, and while the system overall may be a service written in Erlang, it doesn't necessarily mean that we can call everything inside a "server" without getting super ambiguous! That's confusing. I'm going to namespace your project as "ES" for now. So you'll have es_app and es_sup and so on. This will come in handy later when we want to start defining new modules, maybe some of them called "server" without having to write "server_server" all over the place. Second: Input Data Generally speaking, we would like to pass arguments to functions instead of burying literals (or worse, macro rewrites) inside of code. If we are going to have magic numbers and constants let's do our best to put them into a configuration file so that we can access them in a programmatic way, or even better, let's use them in the initial startup calls as arguments to subordinate processes so that we can rework the behavior of the system (once written) only by messing around with the startup calling functions in the main application module. -module(es). -behaviour(application). -export([listen/1, ignore/0]). -export([start/0, start/1]). -export([start/2, stop/1]). listen(PortNum) -> es_client_man:listen(PortNum). ignore() -> es_client_man:ignore(). start() -> ok = application:ensure_started(sasl), ok = application:start(?MODULE), io:format("Starting es..."). start(Port) -> ok = start(), ok = es_client_man:listen(Port), io:format("Startup complete, listening on ~w~n", [Port]). start(normal, _Args) -> es_sup:start_link(). stop(_State) -> ok. I added a start/1 function above as well as a start/0, a listen/1 and an ignore/0 that you'll see again later in es_client_man. These are mostly convenience wrappers around things you could call more explicitly, but probably won't want to type all the time. This application module kicks things off by having an application master start the project for us (by calling application:start/1) and then the next line calls erl_server_server to tell it to start listening. In early development I find this approach much more useful than burying autostarts to every component all over the place, and later on it gives us a very simple way to write an external interface that can turn various components on and off. Ah, also... we're going to start this as a for-real Erlang application, so we'll need an app file in ebin/ (or if you're using erlang.mk or something similar an app.src file in src/): ebin/es.app looks like this: {application,es, [{description,"An Erlang Server example project"}, {vsn,"0.1.0"}, {applications,[stdlib,kernel,sasl]}, {modules,[es, es_sup, es_clients, es_client_sup, es_client, es_client_man]}, {mod,{es,[]}}]}. The list under modules reflects the layout of the supervision tree, actually, as you will see below. The start/2 function above now asserts that we will only start in normal mode (which may or may not be appropriate), and disregards startup args (which also may or may not be appropriate). Third: The Supervision Tree -module(es_sup). -behaviour(supervisor). -export([start_link/0]). -export([init/1]). start_link() -> supervisor:start_link({local, ?MODULE}, ?MODULE, []). init([]) -> RestartStrategy = {one_for_one, 1, 60}, Clients = {es_clients, {es_clients, start_link, []}, permanent, 5000, supervisor, [es_clients]}, Children = [Clients], {ok, {RestartStrategy, Children}}. And then... -module(es_clients). -behavior(supervisor). -export([start_link/0]). -export([init/1]). start_link() -> supervisor:start_link({local, ?MODULE}, ?MODULE, none). init(none) -> RestartStrategy = {rest_for_one, 1, 60}, ClientSup = {es_client_sup, {es_client_sup, start_link, []}, permanent, 5000, supervisor, [es_client_sup]}, ClientMan = {es_client_man, {es_client_man, start_link, []}, permanent, 5000, worker, [es_client_man]}, Children = [ClientSup, ClientMan], {ok, {RestartStrategy, Children}}. Whoa! What is going on here?!? Well, the es_sup is a supervisor, not a one-off thingy that just spawns other one-off thingies. (Misunderstanding supervisors is part of your core problem.) Supervisors are boring. Supervisors should be boring. All they really do as a reader of code is what the structure of the supervision tree is inside. What they do for us in terms of OTP structure is extremely important, but they don't require that we write any procedural code, just declare what children it should have. What we are implementing here is called a service -> worker structure. So we have the top-level supervisor for your overall application called es_sup. Below that we have (for now) a single service component called es_clients. The es_clients process is also a supervisor. The reason for this is to define a clear way for the client connection parts to not affect whatever ongoing state may exist in the rest of your system later. Just accepting connections from clients is useless -- surely there is some state that matters elsewhere, like long-running connections to some Java node or whatever. That would be a separate service component maybe called es_java_nodes and that part of the program would begin with its own, separate supervisor. That's why it is called a "supervision tree" instead of a "supervision list". So back to clients... We will have clients connecting. That is why we call them "clients", because from the perspective of this Erlang system the things connecting are clients, and the processes that accept those connections abstract the clients so we can treat each connection handler as a client itself -- because that is exactly what it represents. If we connect to upstream services later, we would want to call those whatever they are abstracting so that our semantics within the system is sane. You can then think in terms of "an es_client sent a message to an es_java_node to query [thingy]" instead of trying to keep things straight like "a server_server asked a java_server_client to server_server the service_server" (which is literally how stupid things get if you don't keep your naming principles straight in terms of inner-system perspective). Blah blah blah... So, here is the es_client_sup: -module(es_client_sup). -behaviour(supervisor). -export([start_acceptor/1]). -export([start_link/0]). -export([init/1]). start_acceptor(ListenSocket) -> supervisor:start_child(?MODULE, [ListenSocket]). start_link() -> supervisor:start_link({local, ?MODULE}, ?MODULE, none). init(none) -> RestartStrategy = {simple_one_for_one, 1, 60}, Client = {es_client, {es_client, start_link, []}, temporary, brutal_kill, worker, [es_client]}, {ok, {RestartStrategy, [Client]}}. Are you picking up a pattern? I wasn't kidding when I said that "supervisors should be boring..." :-) Note that here we are actually passing an argument in and we have defined an interface function. That is so we have a logicalish place to call if we need a socket acceptor to start. Fourth: The Client Service Itself Let's look at the client manager: -module(es_client_man). -behavior(gen_server). -export([listen/1, ignore/0]). -export([start_link/0]). -export([init/1, handle_call/3, handle_cast/2, handle_info/2, code_change/3, terminate/2]). -record(s, {port_num = none :: none | inet:port_number(), listener = none :: none | gen_tcp:socket()}). listen(PortNum) -> gen_server:call(?MODULE, {listen, PortNum}). ignore() -> gen_server:cast(?MODULE, ignore). start_link() -> gen_server:start_link({local, ?MODULE}, ?MODULE, none, []). init(none) -> ok = io:format("Starting.~n"), State = #s{}, {ok, State}. handle_call({listen, PortNum}, _, State) -> {Response, NewState} = do_listen(PortNum, State), {reply, Response, NewState}; handle_call(Unexpected, From, State) -> ok = io:format("~p Unexpected call from ~tp: ~tp~n", [self(), From, Unexpected]), {noreply, State}. handle_cast(ignore, State) -> NewState = do_ignore(State), {noreply, NewState}; handle_cast(Unexpected, State) -> ok = io:format("~p Unexpected cast: ~tp~n", [self(), Unexpected]), {noreply, State}. handle_info(Unexpected, State) -> ok = io:format("~p Unexpected info: ~tp~n", [self(), Unexpected]), {noreply, State}. code_change(_, State, _) -> {ok, State}. terminate(_, _) -> ok. do_listen(PortNum, State = #s{port_num = none}) -> SocketOptions = [{active, once}, {mode, binary}, {keepalive, true}, {reuseaddr, true}], {ok, Listener} = gen_tcp:listen(PortNum, SocketOptions), {ok, _} = es_client:start(Listener), {ok, State#s{port_num = PortNum, listener = Listener}}; do_listen(_, State = #s{port_num = PortNum}) -> ok = io:format("~p Already listening on ~p~n", [self(), PortNum]), {{error, {listening, PortNum}}, State}. do_ignore(State = #s{listener = none}) -> State; do_ignore(State = #s{listener = Listener}) -> ok = gen_tcp:close(Listener), State#s{listener = none}. Hmmm, what is all that about? The basic idea here is that we have a service supervisor over the whole concept of clients (es_clients, as discussed above), and then we have the simple_one_for_one to handle whatever clients happen to be alive just now (es_client_sup), and here we have the management interface to the subsystem. All this manager does is keep track of what port we are listening on, and owns the socket that we are listening to if one is open at the moment. Note that this can be easily rewritten to allow any arbitrary number of ports to be listened to simultaneously, or track all living clients, or whatever. There really is no limit to what you might want to do. So how do we start clients that can accept connections? By telling them to spawn and listen to the listen socket that we pass in as an argument. Go take another look at es_client_sup above. We are passing in an empty list as its first argument. What will happen when we call its start_link function is that whatever else we pass in as a list will get added to the list of arguments overall. In this case we will pass in the listen socket and so it will be started with the argument [ListenSocket]. Whenever a client listener accepts a connection, its next step will be to spawn its successor, handing it the original ListenSocket argument. Ah, the miracle of life. -module(es_client). -export([start/1]). -export([start_link/1, init/2]). -export([system_continue/3, system_terminate/4, system_get_state/1, system_replace_state/2]). -record(s, {socket = none :: none | gen_tcp:socket()}). start(ListenSocket) -> es_client_sup:start_acceptor(ListenSocket). start_link(ListenSocket) -> proc_lib:start_link(?MODULE, init, [self(), ListenSocket]). init(Parent, ListenSocket) -> ok = io:format("~p Listening.~n", [self()]), Debug = sys:debug_options([]), ok = proc_lib:init_ack(Parent, {ok, self()}), listen(Parent, Debug, ListenSocket). listen(Parent, Debug, ListenSocket) -> case gen_tcp:accept(ListenSocket) of {ok, Socket} -> {ok, _} = start(ListenSocket), {ok, Peer} = inet:peername(Socket), ok = io:format("~p Connection accepted from: ~p~n", [self(), Peer]), State = #s{socket = Socket}, loop(Parent, Debug, State); {error, closed} -> ok = io:format("~p Retiring: Listen socket closed.~n", [self()]), exit(normal) end. loop(Parent, Debug, State = #s{socket = Socket}) -> ok = inet:setopts(Socket, [{active, once}]), receive {tcp, Socket, <<"bye\r\n">>} -> ok = io:format("~p Client saying goodbye. Bye!~n", [self()]), ok = gen_tcp:send(Socket, "Bye!\r\n"), ok = gen_tcp:shutdown(Socket, read_write), exit(normal); {tcp, Socket, Message} -> ok = io:format("~p received: ~tp~n", [self(), Message]), ok = gen_tcp:send(Socket, ["You sent: ", Message]), loop(Parent, Debug, State); {tcp_closed, Socket} -> ok = io:format("~p Socket closed, retiring.~n", [self()]), exit(normal); {system, From, Request} -> sys:handle_system_msg(Request, From, Parent, ?MODULE, Debug, State); Unexpected -> ok = io:format("~p Unexpected message: ~tp", [self(), Unexpected]), loop(Parent, Debug, State) end. system_continue(Parent, Debug, State) -> loop(Parent, Debug, State). system_terminate(Reason, _Parent, _Debug, _State) -> exit(Reason). system_get_state(Misc) -> {ok, Misc}. system_replace_state(StateFun, Misc) -> {ok, StateFun(Misc), Misc}. Note that above we have written a Pure Erlang process that integrates with OTP the way a gen_server would, but has a bit more straightforward loop that handles only the socket. This means we do not have the gen_server call/cast mechanics (and may need to implement those ourselves, but usually asynch-only is a better approach for socket handling). This is started through the proc_lib module which is designed specifically to bootstrap OTP-compliant processes of any arbitrary type. If you are going to use supervisors then you really want to go all the way and use OTP properly. So what we have above right now is a very basic Telnet echo service. Instead of writing a magical client process inside the server module to tie your brain in knots (Erlangers don't like their brains tied in knots), you can start this, tell it to listen to some port, and telnet to it yourself and see the results. I added some scripts to automate launching things, but basically the hinge on the code and make modules. Your project is laid out like es/ Emakefile ebin/es.app src/*.erl The contents of the Emakefile will make things easier for us. In this case it is just one line: enter code here{"src/*", [debug_info, {i, "include/"}, {outdir, "ebin/"}]}. In the main es/ directory if we enter an erl shell we can now do... 1> code:add_patha("ebin"). true 2> make:all(). up_to_date 3> es:start(). And you'll see a bunch of SASL start reports scrolling up the screen. From there let's do es:listen(5555): 4> es:listen(5555). <0.94.0> Listening. ok Cool! So it seems like things are working. Let's try to telnet to ourselves: ceverett#changa:~/vcs/es$ telnet localhost 5555 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. Hello es thingy You sent: Hello es thingy Yay! It works! You sent: Yay! It works! bye Bye! Connection closed by foreign host. What does that look like on the other side? <0.96.0> Listening. <0.94.0> Connection accepted from: {{127,0,0,1},60775} <0.94.0> received: <<"Hello es thingy\r\n">> <0.94.0> received: <<"Yay! It works!\r\n">> <0.94.0> Client saying goodbye. Bye! Ah, here we see the "Listening." message from the next listener <0.96.0> that was spawned by the first one <0.94.0>. How about concurrent connections? <0.97.0> Listening. <0.96.0> Connection accepted from: {{127,0,0,1},60779} <0.98.0> Listening. <0.97.0> Connection accepted from: {{127,0,0,1},60780} <0.97.0> received: <<"Screen 1\r\n">> <0.96.0> received: <<"Screen 2\r\n">> <0.97.0> received: <<"I wonder if I could make screen 1 talk to screen 2...\r\n">> <0.96.0> received: <<"Time to go\r\n">> <0.96.0> Client saying goodbye. Bye! <0.97.0> Client saying goodbye. Bye! Oh, neato. A concurrent server! From here you can tool around and make this basic structure change to do pretty much anything you might imagine. DO NOTE that there is a lot missing from this code. I have stripped it of edoc notations and typespecs (used by Dialyzer, a critically important tool in a large project) -- which is a BAD thing to do for a production system. For an example of a production-style project that is small enough to wrap your head around (only 3 modules + full docs), refer to zuuid. It was written specifically to serve as a code example, though it happens to be a full-featured UUID generator. Forgive the hugeness of this answer to your (much shorter) question. This comes up from time to time and I wanted to write a full example of a cut-down network socket service to which I can refer people in the future, and just happened to get the hankering to do so when I read your question. :-) Hopefully the SO nazis will forgive this grievous infraction.
Avoiding a race condition in erlang
Is this how you avoid a race condition? -module(b). -export([my_spawn/1]). my_spawn(Func) -> Pid = spawn(listener()), Pid ! {self(), spawn, Func}, receive {From, Desired_Pid} -> Desired_Pid end. listener() -> receive {From, spawn, Func} -> {Pid,Ref} = spawn_monitor(Func), From ! {self(), Pid}, receive {'DOWN',Ref, process, _, _} -> io:format("I lived for [calculated how long i lived]") end end. What I'm trying to achieve here is A = spawn(proc), monitor(process,A). However A might die before the second line executes.
If you spawn a process and it dies just before you create your monitor, you will still receive the DOWN message: 1> Pid = spawn(erlang,now,[]). <0.35.0> 2> is_process_alive(Pid). false 3> monitor(process, Pid). #Ref<0.0.0.86> 4> flush(). Shell got {'DOWN',#Ref<0.0.0.86>,process,<0.35.0>,noproc} As this shell session shows, we first spawn an intentionally short-lived process, and we use is_process_alive to verify that it's dead. We then create a monitor for the process, and then we flush the shell's message queue and see that it did indeed receive a DOWN message for the already-deceased process.
Does Erlang's open_port call link to resulting process?
I've got some C code that I'm executing as an external process using Erlang's Port capability. I want the process that starts the C code, via open_port, to detect if the C code crashes. The documentation isn't completely clear to me, but as I understand it, a two-way link is established between the Erlang process and the external code. If one dies, the other is notified. Here is a slightly modified version of the code in the "Erlang Interoperability Tutorial Guide" (http://www.erlang.org/doc/tutorial/c_port.html): init(ExtPrg) -> register(cport, self()), process_flag(trap_exit, true), Port = open_port({spawn, ExtPrg}, [{packet, 2}]), PInfo = erlang:port_info(Port), io:format("Port: ~p PInfo: ~p~n", [Port, PInfo]), RVal = link(Port), io:format("link? ~p~n", [RVal]), loop(Port). loop(Port) -> receive {call, Caller, Msg} -> Port ! {self(), {command, encode(Msg)}}, receive {Port, {data, Data}} -> Caller ! {cport, decode(Data)} end, loop(Port); stop -> Port ! {self(), close}, receive {Port, closed} -> exit(normal) end; {'EXIT', Port, Reason} -> exit(port_terminated) end. The init call correctly executes the C code, and as you can see sets trap_exit, but the EXTT message is not received when I kill the C code using kill -HUP from the Unix shell. I've tried with and without the link call (the Erlang documentation does not use it). The printing code I've added generates: Eshell V5.9.1 (abort with ^G) 1> cport:start("./cport 22"). Port: #Port<0.630> PInfo: [{name,"./cport 22"}, {links,[<0.38.0>]}, {id,630}, {connected,<0.38.0>}, {input,0}, {output,0}] <0.38.0> link? true It appears that a link is registered but I'm not catching the trap. What am I missing?
Try the extra option exit_status when calling open_port(). I did a similar Erlang program for supervising game servers. When the external game server crashed I wanted to restart it from my central Erlang monitoring system. This was the code that worked for me: erlang:open_port({spawn_executable, "<Path to my game server start script>"}, [ exit_status ]), When the external process is killed you will get a message of type {Port,{exit_status,Status}}
Help Understanding Error Report
Can anyone explain why I get the following error when I run: erl -noshell -s simple_server and then telnet 127.0.0.1 1084? The code itself is below the error message. =ERROR REPORT==== 13-Aug-2011::23:12:05 === Error in process <0.30.0> with exit value: {{badmatch,{error,closed}},[{simple_server,wait_accept,1}]} -module(simple_server). -compile(export_all). start() -> {ok, ListenSoc} = gen_tcp:listen(1084, [binary, {active, false}]), wait_accept(ListenSoc). wait_accept(ListenSoc) -> {ok, Socket} = gen_tcp:accept(ListenSoc), spawn(?MODULE, wait_accept, [ListenSoc]), send_resp(Socket). send_resp(Socket) -> gen_tcp:send(Socket, "Response from simple server...\n"), ok = gen_tcp:close(Socket).
This thing: {{badmatch,{error,closed}}, [{simple_server,wait_accept,1}]} should be read as: "We are in simple_server:wait_accept/1" and we got a badmatch error (see http://www.erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/errors.html#id81191). This means that our match expression {ok, Socket} = gen_tcp:accept(ListenSock), returned {error, closed} (as it is the only match expression in that function it is simple). Why it returned that is a bit murky to me. The best bet is that the process calling the start/0 function has terminated and then the listen socket has been closed because of that termination (this happens automatically). Note that an error in the erlang shell will restart it and as such close the listen socket.
When a socket is created it's linked to the current process, which known as socket controlling process. When controlling process is terminated all linked sockets are just closed. In your case ListenSoc is closed when send_resp() is over (so controlling process of the socket is terminated) and gen_tcp:accept(ListenSoc) in newly created process returns {error, closed}. Easiest fix is to add call to gen_tcp:contorolling_process/2 in wait_accept like this: ... Pid = spawn(?MODULE, wait_accept, [ListenSoc]), ok = gen_tcp:controlling_process(ListenSoc, Pid), ... But in real projects it's better to loop in listen socket controlling process. You can get an idea from Nicolas Buduroi answer.