-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
src: cache necessary isolate & context in api/* #38366
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