Received: by 10.100.103.11 with SMTP id a11mr513597anc.46.1315935297229;
        Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: erjang@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.90.3.19 with SMTP id 19ls2817836agc.7.gmail; Tue, 13 Sep 2011
 10:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.91.150.15 with SMTP id c15mr97673ago.40.1315935296659; Tue, 13
 Sep 2011 10:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by a12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:34:56
 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAO1s=UUikQP5onc0URAPzX+VvA6GddzSUuHX0M4ntMPwuy6Oww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <41f8bb23-8588-406f-b608-00de6e69f64f@l4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
 <9e27def7-a528-4f84-a92b-cbc3c9c4a194@n11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <CAH_GQaNgeDB3-KNR49=VCuq+ga7jXtZo9TEJ3GXhGX_W7+3_4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b66740-be10-457e-a000-bc9e5f16e9f3@v18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
 <CAH_GQaPEbtwrsWpPpoTQ0HA_+xV9GCKLgbOVUNPmDB8_nr46Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <f54b1b81-a6de-4a6b-81b5-3b5c5866b420@g31g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <4ea4e25f-56f7-4d0e-887f-7636e3bedb75@dp9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <CAO1s=UXKf7XXyOjRCH_kpdp-8nf9S7VvZpxRmuURNd+YuWAubQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO1s=UUikQP5onc0URAPzX+VvA6GddzSUuHX0M4ntMPwuy6Oww@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <a53f3a1d-44ab-4e21-9738-27987770e471@a12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Erjang vs Jinterface
From: Matthew Evans <pipmaster2...@gmail.com>
To: Erjang <erjang@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks all for your replies.

Unfortunately I can't describe too much about the architecture other
than to say that the Erlang VMs will be running on embedded hardware
(still using Linux) and shall be monitoring traffic streams on those
devices as well as exchanging state information between them. The key
to the Erlang portion is "5 nines" reliability - that stuff can not
crash. The central Java application provides certain analytics and
application "smarts" to the whole system. There isn't a technical
reason why Java was chosen -- we just selected a language from the
available development pool (in fact there are stronger reasons for
doing that work in Erlang IMO).

Initially I'm just after an IPC, in which case jinterface should work
just fine (I've already got experience developing cnode interfaces, so
I know the pitfalls of that solution).

I can see a number of benefits of Erjang:

* Supervision of the Erjang VM (and by extension the JVM) from the
distributed Erlang VMs using the OTP supervision methods.

* No need to add call backs or other hooks in the interface as new
functionality is added.

* We need an Erlang VM on the same host as the JVM - using Erjang
would negate this need.

Mainly though, the ability to use features of both languages in a
"native" manner, has the greatest appeal.

I do however have enough stuff to get starting with.

Many thanks