gen_server 关闭监听套接字
我想做的是让 gen_server 进程接受一个新客户端并立即生成一个新子进程来处理下一个客户端。我看到的问题是,当套接字完成并最终终止时,它也会关闭侦听套接字,我不明白为什么,即使它不再引用它。
知道我做错了什么吗?
gen_server:
-module(simple_tcp).
-behaviour(gen_server).
%% API
-export([start_link/1, stop/0, start/0, start/1]).
%% gen-server callbacks
-export([init/1, handle_call/3, handle_cast/2, handle_info/2, terminate/2, code_change/3]).
-define(SERVER, ?MODULE).
-define(DEFAULT_PORT, 1055).
-record(state, {port, lsock}).
start_link({port, Port}) ->
gen_server:start_link(?MODULE, [{port, Port}], []);
start_link({socket, Socket}) ->
gen_server:start_link(?MODULE, [{socket, Socket}], []).
start({port, Port}) ->
simple_tcp_sup:start_child({port, Port});
start({socket, Socket}) ->
simple_tcp_sup:start_child({socket, Socket}).
start() ->
start({port, ?DEFAULT_PORT}).
stop() ->
gen_server:cast(?SERVER, stop).
% Callback functions
init([{port, Port}]) ->
{ok, LSock} = gen_tcp:listen(Port, [{active, true},{reuseaddr, true}]),
init([{socket, LSock}]);
init([{socket, Socket}]) ->
io:fwrite("Starting server with socket: ~p~n", [self()]),
{ok, Port} = inet:port(Socket),
{ok, #state{port=Port, lsock=Socket}, 0}.
handle_call(_Msg, _From, State) ->
{noreply, State}.
handle_cast(stop, State) ->
{stop, ok, State}.
handle_info({tcp, Socket, RawData}, State) ->
gen_tcp:send(Socket, io_lib:fwrite("Received raw data: ~p~n", [RawData])),
{noreply, State};
handle_info({tcp_error, _Socket, Reason}, State) ->
io:fwrite("Error: ~p~n", [Reason]),
{stop, normal, State};
handle_info(timeout, #state{lsock = LSock} = State) ->
case gen_tcp:accept(LSock) of
{ok, Sock} ->
io:fwrite("Accepting connection...~p~n", [self()]),
start({socket, LSock}),
{noreply, #state{lsock=Sock}};
{error, Reason} ->
io:fwrite("Error: ~p, ~p~n", [Reason, self()]),
{stop, normal, State}
end;
handle_info({tcp_closed, _Port}, State) ->
io:fwrite("Socket closed: ~p~n", [self()]),
simple_tcp_sup:kill_child(self()),
{stop, normal, State}.
terminate(_Reason, _State) ->
io:fwrite("Shutting down server: ~p~n", [self()]),
ok.
code_change(_OldVsn, State, _Extra) ->
{ok, State}.
主管:
-module(simple_tcp_sup).
-behaviour(supervisor).
-export([start_link/0,
start_child/1
]).
-export([init/1]).
-define(SERVER, ?MODULE).
start_link() ->
supervisor:start_link({local, ?SERVER}, ?MODULE, []).
start_child({socket, Socket}) ->
io:fwrite("Spawning child with socket...~n"),
supervisor:start_child(?SERVER, [{socket, Socket}]);
start_child({port, Port}) ->
io:fwrite("Spawning child with port...~n"),
supervisor:start_child(?SERVER, [{port, Port}]).
init([]) ->
Element = {simple_tcp, {simple_tcp, start_link, []},
temporary, brutal_kill, worker, [simple_tcp]},
Children = [Element],
RestartStrategy = {simple_one_for_one, 0, 1},
{ok, {RestartStrategy, Children}}.
What I'm trying to do is have a gen_server process accept a new client and immediately spawn a new child to handle the next one. The issue that I'm seeing is that when the socket is finished and consequentially terminates, it also closes the listening socket and I can't figure out why, even though it no longer references it.
Any idea what I am doing wrong?
gen_server:
-module(simple_tcp).
-behaviour(gen_server).
%% API
-export([start_link/1, stop/0, start/0, start/1]).
%% gen-server callbacks
-export([init/1, handle_call/3, handle_cast/2, handle_info/2, terminate/2, code_change/3]).
-define(SERVER, ?MODULE).
-define(DEFAULT_PORT, 1055).
-record(state, {port, lsock}).
start_link({port, Port}) ->
gen_server:start_link(?MODULE, [{port, Port}], []);
start_link({socket, Socket}) ->
gen_server:start_link(?MODULE, [{socket, Socket}], []).
start({port, Port}) ->
simple_tcp_sup:start_child({port, Port});
start({socket, Socket}) ->
simple_tcp_sup:start_child({socket, Socket}).
start() ->
start({port, ?DEFAULT_PORT}).
stop() ->
gen_server:cast(?SERVER, stop).
% Callback functions
init([{port, Port}]) ->
{ok, LSock} = gen_tcp:listen(Port, [{active, true},{reuseaddr, true}]),
init([{socket, LSock}]);
init([{socket, Socket}]) ->
io:fwrite("Starting server with socket: ~p~n", [self()]),
{ok, Port} = inet:port(Socket),
{ok, #state{port=Port, lsock=Socket}, 0}.
handle_call(_Msg, _From, State) ->
{noreply, State}.
handle_cast(stop, State) ->
{stop, ok, State}.
handle_info({tcp, Socket, RawData}, State) ->
gen_tcp:send(Socket, io_lib:fwrite("Received raw data: ~p~n", [RawData])),
{noreply, State};
handle_info({tcp_error, _Socket, Reason}, State) ->
io:fwrite("Error: ~p~n", [Reason]),
{stop, normal, State};
handle_info(timeout, #state{lsock = LSock} = State) ->
case gen_tcp:accept(LSock) of
{ok, Sock} ->
io:fwrite("Accepting connection...~p~n", [self()]),
start({socket, LSock}),
{noreply, #state{lsock=Sock}};
{error, Reason} ->
io:fwrite("Error: ~p, ~p~n", [Reason, self()]),
{stop, normal, State}
end;
handle_info({tcp_closed, _Port}, State) ->
io:fwrite("Socket closed: ~p~n", [self()]),
simple_tcp_sup:kill_child(self()),
{stop, normal, State}.
terminate(_Reason, _State) ->
io:fwrite("Shutting down server: ~p~n", [self()]),
ok.
code_change(_OldVsn, State, _Extra) ->
{ok, State}.
supervisor:
-module(simple_tcp_sup).
-behaviour(supervisor).
-export([start_link/0,
start_child/1
]).
-export([init/1]).
-define(SERVER, ?MODULE).
start_link() ->
supervisor:start_link({local, ?SERVER}, ?MODULE, []).
start_child({socket, Socket}) ->
io:fwrite("Spawning child with socket...~n"),
supervisor:start_child(?SERVER, [{socket, Socket}]);
start_child({port, Port}) ->
io:fwrite("Spawning child with port...~n"),
supervisor:start_child(?SERVER, [{port, Port}]).
init([]) ->
Element = {simple_tcp, {simple_tcp, start_link, []},
temporary, brutal_kill, worker, [simple_tcp]},
Children = [Element],
RestartStrategy = {simple_one_for_one, 0, 1},
{ok, {RestartStrategy, Children}}.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(2)
第三个
handle_info
颠倒了Sock
和LSock
的角色。它应该将Sock
传递给子进程,并保持其自身状态不变。顺便说一句:从头开始重建
State
是一种不好的业力 (#state{lsock=Sock}
),您应该始终从当前的State
派生新的State
code>State (State#state{lsock=Sock}
),以防万一您稍后添加更多状态变量。实际上,这现在有一个错误(尽管是良性的),因为您丢弃了端口号。Your third
handle_info
reverses the roles ofSock
andLSock
. It should passSock
to the child process and leave its own state unmodified.BTW: It's bad karma to rebuild
State
from scratch (#state{lsock=Sock}
) you should always derive the newState
from currentState
(State#state{lsock=Sock}
), just in case you later add more state variables. Actually, this has a bug right now (albeit a benign one), since you are throwing away the port number.好吧,我建议您让 Socket 内容由单独的进程处理,这些进程与 gen_server 异步通信并与其
链接
。我有一个示例代码片段,可以向您展示如何做到这一点。 gen_server 启动并生成一个 TCP 侦听器,在成功获取侦听套接字后通知我们的 gen_server 更改其内部状态。我从上到下排列了代码。所有相关功能都已显示。
重点关注套接字处理进程以及它们如何与 gen_server 交互。
借助 gen_server 的异步功能,我们可以处理来自单独链接进程的套接字详细信息。然后,这些进程将通过
cast
与 gen_server 进行通信,并且不会阻止 gen_server 的并发特性。Well, i suggest that you let the Socket stuff be handled by separate processes that communicate asynchronously with the gen_server and are
linked
with it. I have a sample code snippet that would show you how this could be done. The gen_server starts and spawns a TCP listener which after successfully obtaining a listening socket informs our gen_server as to change its internal state.I have arranged the code from top down. All relevant functions have been showed.
Focus on the socket handling processes and how they interact with the gen_server
With the asynchronous capability of the gen_server, we can handle the socket details from separate linked processes. These processes then would communicate with the gen_server via
cast
and without blocking the gen_server from its concurrent nature.