ssl: Use supervisor:which_child/2 to improve start up #9231
Conversation
CT Test Results 1 files 11 suites 4m 56s ⏱️ Results for commit 23f2d56. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. To speed up review, make sure that you have read Contributing to Erlang/OTP and that all checks pass. See the TESTING and DEVELOPMENT HowTo guides for details about how to run test locally. Artifacts// Erlang/OTP Github Action Bot |
IngelaAndin
force-pushed
the
ingela/ssl/use-which_child-to-improve-start-up/OTP-19406
branch
4 times, most recently
from
1cf9880 to
6ba290e
Compare
IngelaAndin
added
the
testing
IngelaAndin
force-pushed
the
ingela/ssl/use-which_child-to-improve-start-up/OTP-19406
branch
from
e54b690 to
4c805eb
Compare
IngelaAndin
force-pushed
the
ingela/ssl/use-which_child-to-improve-start-up/OTP-19406
branch
from
4c805eb to
49a7e9a
Compare
IngelaAndin
removed
the
testing
IngelaAndin
added
the
testing
IngelaAndin
force-pushed
the
ingela/ssl/use-which_child-to-improve-start-up/OTP-19406
branch
from
49a7e9a to
23f2d56
Compare
| {error, Error} -> | ||
| {error, Error} | ||
| end. | ||
| end; | ||
| upgrade(server, Socket, #config{transport_info = CbInfo, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how come the previous variant of upgrade function worked for server role? did it work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The server upgrade worked, but not using the upgrade function, the server upgrade was implemented directly in ssl.erl calling several functions in tls_socket. It made it harder to understand what was happening and it was asymmetrical to how the client is implemented. When the logic is the same the code should have the same pattern. And also we should keep the related logic in the relevant modules (as we have discussed earlier) We can continue to work on when it makes sense to have client and server separate modules, but it does not make sense in all situations, I think for some modules it makes more sense with a parameter.
No description provided.