You could still have GLOBAL_SCOPE Bindings (or any intermediate scope
that you may introduce in your impl. of ScriptContext) between those
contexts be different. Even ENGINE_SCOPE Bindings could be different --
say a SimpleBindings instance. Single shared Nashorn global is
associated with that ENGINE_SCOPE. But when an undefined global var is
searched from script, after searching the nashorn's Global, search
continues in the Bindings of ScriptContext. So, you can continue to
expose different variable values.
Example:
ScriptContext defCtx = engine.getContext();
defCtx.getBindings(ScriptContext.GLOBAL_SCOPE).put("foo", "hello");
ScriptContext myCtx = new SimpleScriptContext();
myCtx.setBindings(defCtx.getBindings(ScriptContext.ENGINE_SCOPE),
ScriptContext.ENGINE_SCOPE);
Bindings b = new SimpleBindings();
b.put("foo", "world");
myCtx.setBindings(b, ScriptContext.GLOBAL_SCOPE);
engine.eval("print(foo)"); // prints 'hello'
engine.eval("print(foo)", myCtx); // prints "world"
engine.eval("print(foo)", defCtx); // prints "hello"
PS. compilable test attached.
-Sundar
On Thursday 12 December 2013 02:19 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Tim Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/12/13 12:53, Attila Szegedi wrote:
On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Tim Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
Confused...
I assumed that if two scripts where run with their own script context, then
they would already have separate globals, i.e. if I do
myglobal = 1
in module 1 that won't be visible in module 2.
That's true, but then you also end up with the need for ScriptObjectMirrors
between them, and that was what I suggested you try to avoid.
So I'm not sure really what --global-per-engine really means, if the modules
have their own globals anyway. I guess my understanding must be wrong somewhere.
Well, it will mean that modules won't have their own globals…
--global-per-engine will make it so that the Global object is specific to the
ScriptEngine, and not to the ScriptContext, e.g. even if you replace the
ScriptContext of the engine, when scripts are run, they'll still see the same
global object as before the replacement. The gist of it is:
a) without --global-per-engine, the Global object is specific to a
ScriptContext, each ScriptContext has its own. ENGINE_SCOPE Bindings object of
the context is actually a mirror of its Global.
b) with --global-per-engine, the Global object lives in the ScriptEngine.
ENGINE_SCOPE Bindings object of the context is just a vanilla SimpleBindings
(or whatever you set it to), and Global will delegate property getters for
non-existent properties to it (but it'll still receive property setters, so new
global variables created by one script will be visible by another; no isolation
there).
One more question on this. With --global-per-engine, and multiple ScriptContext
instances - if all the ScriptContext instances share a single a single global,
how is this different from just having a single ScriptContext in which you
execute all JavaScript?
Not much. Using separate ScriptContexts with single engine is pretty much equivalent to modifying
the initial ScriptContext of the engine. When I thought you'll end up using Java code to implement
module loading, I suggested either using separate contexts, or at least changing the ENGINE_SCOPE
bindings of the original context to contain "module", "exports", etc. but if
you now implement those as parameters of an anonymous function that you put around the module
source code and eval(), then you don't need even that.
So, yeah, you can have a single context for all JavaScript. As I said earlier,
it'll be single-threaded, but JavaScript the language is by nature
single-threaded (that's why node.js is single-threaded too). Probably the
better way to say it is that JavaScript language has no defined multithreaded
semantics, and thus a JavaScript execution environment is unsafe to use in a
multithreaded manner. You can always have multiple engines – either per-thread
or pooled – but they'll be completely isolated from one another, and modules
and other code will end up being loaded separately in them. If you want shared
state between them, you can always plug some shared Java objects into their
ENGINE_SCOPE bindings or have them access some stateful statics, and then
ensure that those Java objects are threadsafe.
But I have now digressed a lot from your original question.
Attila.
What I was suggesting is that your module loading code would look something
like:
// The engine that you use
ScriptEngine engine = new NashornScriptEngine().getEngine(new String[] {
"--global-per-engine" });
...
// when loading a module
Bindings moduleVars = new SimpleBindings();
moduleVars.put("require", requireFn);
moduleVars.put("module", moduleDescriptorObj);
moduleVars.put("exports", exportsObj);
Bindings prevBindings = engine.getBindings(ENGINE_SCOPE);
engine.setBindings(moduleVars, ENGINE_SCOPE);
try {
engine.eval(moduleSource);
} finally {
engine.setBindings(prevBindings, ENGINE_SCOPE);
}
return exportsObj;
NB: your modules would _not_ run in isolated globals. I thought they do, but I
just spoke to Sundar and he explained the mechanism to me so now I see they
won't -- see above the case b).
They could pollute each other's global namespace (since it's shared). Hopefully
they'd adhere to Modules/Secure recommendation and refrain from doing so, but
you can't really enforce it.
My require() implementation in Rhino could provide real isolation, but this is
unfortunately impossible in Nashorn. Nashorn makes an assumption that the
global object during execution of a script is an instance of
jdk.nashorn.internals.objects.Global; in Rhino, it could have been anything so
there I was able to run a module in a new scope that had the actual Global
object as its prototype, so it could catch all variable assignments in itself
and essentially make the Global read only (albeit objects in it mutable - e.g.
a module could still extend Array prototype etc.).
In Nashorn, it's the other way round with "--global-per-engine" - Global object is the
one immediately visible to scripts, and ENGINE_SCOPE Bindings object is used as source of
properties that aren't found in the Global. Here, Global catches variable assignments and
ENGINE_SCOPE Bindings object ends up being immutable (although objects in it are obviously still
mutable, so the module can build up its "exports" object).
Basically, you have a choice between having shared globals (no isolation)
without mirrors (and then you won't run into any issues with mirrors), or
separate globals (with real isolation), but then also mirrors, and then you
might run into limitations of mirrors (e.g. they can't be automatically used as
Runnable etc. callbacks from Java and so on.)
I'm not trying to justify or otherwise qualify any of the design decisions
here, just trying to help you understand its constraints.
Attila.
