I said it years ago, v8 needs something like SpiderMonkey's cookbook < https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/SpiderMonkey/JSAPI_Cookbook>.But you can bug Stephen Beal about this, because Chromium & the v8 teams' priority is to support chrome, not embedders. Stephen has had a few run ins with v8 & chromium devs and continue to ignore him.
-L On Tuesday, July 9, 2013, Floby wrote: > Tim's examples are pretty nice. > The only things missing for all my use cases are storing pointers in JS > objects so I can get them back when I need it. > > something like > > js_set_pointer(C, myObject, pointer); > myType *pointer = js_get_pointer(C, myObject); > > On Monday, 8 July 2013 20:35:36 UTC+2, Timothy J Fontaine wrote: > > [cross post from > http://atxconsulting.com/**2013/07/06/rewrite-it-anyway/<http://atxconsulting.com/2013/07/06/rewrite-it-anyway/> > ] > > Node v1.0 is approaching, and v0.12 is imminent (as far as that goes for > FOSS > projects). As we work towards getting v0.12 out the door, there have been > a lot > of changes happening for node's primary dependency v8. Ben is working on > moving > us to the 3.20 branch, follow his progress > [here](https://github.com/**joyent/node/pull/5804<https://github.com/joyent/node/pull/5804> > ). > > As you can tell this is a signficant change to the API, which requires a > touch > of virtually every file in our `src/`, this has been a huge headache for > him, > and will ultimately cause a huge headache for developers of binary addons. > > You're going to have to `#ifdef` around significant portions of the API to > keep > your module working across different version of node, this is going to > cause > endless amounts of pain and issues for node and developers who have for the > most part been accepting of the churn in our underspecified addon API. > > This one is going to hurt. > > A lot. > > ## TL;DR -- A modest proposal > > Since you're going to have to rewrite your module anyway, it's time for > node to > specify and export the API we are going to "bless" for addons. That is, > just > what API we are going to support and make sure continues to work from > minor and > major releases, as well as a deprecation policy. > > More specifically I think we should be exporting a separate (and not equal) > wrapper around (at the very least) javascript object creation, get/set, > function > calling. > > Additionally we should package and distribute (if possible in npm) a > transitional library/headers which module authors can target today which > will > allow their module to compile and work from v0.8 through v1.0 > > ## The Platform Problem > > We currently allow platforms/distributors to build against shared (their > own) > versions of many of our dependencies, including but not limited to: > > * v8 > - Holy crap, we're about as tightly coupled to the version of v8 we > ship as > chromium itself is. > * libuv > - If we weren't strictly coupled to v8, we certainly are for libuv, > there > would be no (useful) node, without libuv. > * openssl > - This is a must for linux distributions, who like to break DSA keys > and then > make every dependency vulnerable as a result (sorry Debian, I keed I keed). > - This actually allows distributors who know specific things about their > platform to enable/disable the features that allow it to run best. > * zlib > - Meh, this isn't such a big deal, it doesn't really change all that > often. > * http_parser > - Really? People ship this as a separate library? > > This functionality was added to appease platform builders, the likes of > Debian, > Fedora, and even SmartOS. However, doing so has complicated and muddled the > scenario of building and linking binary addons. > > Currently node-gyp downloads the sourceball, extracts the headers from it, > and makes some assumptions from `process.config` about how to build your > addon. > In practice this has been working reasonably well. > > However, I'm very concerned about this as a long term strategy. It's > possible > for someone to have tweaked or twisted the node (or one of its > dependencies) > builds, which could lead to some unintended consequences. In the "best" > case, > you'll get a compiler error from a changed API or clashing symbol. In the > worst > case they have modified the ABI which will manifest itself in unexpected > and > often subtle ways. > > Not to mention that we have no good answer on how to build and link addon > modules against the proper version of a shared dependency (what if the > system > has multiple openssl's, what if they compiled against it in one place, but > now > run against it in another). > > And last but not least, how do modules consume symbols from our > dependencies > that node itself doesn't consume. Consider a specific crypto routin > > -- > -- > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > Posting guidelines: > https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to > nodejs@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nodejs@googlegroups.com');> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'nodejs%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nodejs" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'nodejs%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
