… | |
… | |
665 | |
665 | |
666 | Despite the similarities, there are also some important differences: |
666 | Despite the similarities, there are also some important differences: |
667 | |
667 | |
668 | =over 4 |
668 | =over 4 |
669 | |
669 | |
670 | =item * Node references contain the recipe on how to contact them. |
670 | =item * Node IDs are arbitrary strings in AEMP. |
671 | |
671 | |
672 | Erlang relies on special naming and DNS to work everywhere in the |
672 | Erlang relies on special naming and DNS to work everywhere in the same |
673 | same way. AEMP relies on each node knowing it's own address(es), with |
673 | way. AEMP relies on each node somehow knowing its own address(es) (e.g. by |
674 | convenience functionality. |
674 | configuraiton or DNS), but will otherwise discover other odes itself. |
675 | |
|
|
676 | This means that AEMP requires a less tightly controlled environment at the |
|
|
677 | cost of longer node references and a slightly higher management overhead. |
|
|
678 | |
675 | |
679 | =item * Erlang has a "remote ports are like local ports" philosophy, AEMP |
676 | =item * Erlang has a "remote ports are like local ports" philosophy, AEMP |
680 | uses "local ports are like remote ports". |
677 | uses "local ports are like remote ports". |
681 | |
678 | |
682 | The failure modes for local ports are quite different (runtime errors |
679 | The failure modes for local ports are quite different (runtime errors |