-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.4k
src: cache necessary isolate & context in api/* #38366
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM with a nit
@@ -130,7 +134,7 @@ void InternalCallbackScope::Close() { | |||
return; | |||
} | |||
|
|||
HandleScope handle_scope(env_->isolate()); | |||
HandleScope handle_scope(isolate); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hm, I know this exists before this PR, but why do we create a handle scope here? May be it should just be deleted, AFAICT this is meant to be invoked when there is already a HandleScope
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean, just because there’s an outer handle scope doesn’t mean that it’s pointless to have an inner one, e.g. when InternalCallbackScope
is used in a loop
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@XadillaX The code LGTM, but neither this nor the PR it references have any explanation why we would want to do this…? For contexts I can see the argument that eventually we might have multi-context readiness, but for the Isolate pointer this seems like a fairly pointless change
@@ -130,7 +134,7 @@ void InternalCallbackScope::Close() { | |||
return; | |||
} | |||
|
|||
HandleScope handle_scope(env_->isolate()); | |||
HandleScope handle_scope(isolate); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean, just because there’s an outer handle scope doesn’t mean that it’s pointless to have an inner one, e.g. when InternalCallbackScope
is used in a loop
Yeah, the |
If you’re saying that this has a performance impact: We use I’m not really minding the code change, but I do think that the project should a) have a common code style for these questions and b) enforce that through a linter, otherwise changes will just happen back and forth forever (#38172 literally did the reverse of this only a week ago). |
I see. I think we may create an issue about both a and b but not in this one. Shall we change the CPPLINT rule? |
Landed in f52dc17 |
This doesn't land cleanly on v14.x-staging. |
Refs: #37473