| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Instead of passing the payload for Workers directly to `.onmessage`,
perform something more similar to what the browser API provides,
namely create an event object with a `.data` property.
This does not make `MessagePort` implement the `EventTarget` API, nor
does it implement the full `MessageEvent` API, but it would make
such extensions non-breaking changes if we desire them at
some point in the future.
(This would be a breaking change if Workers were not experimental.
Currently, this method is also undocumented and only exists with
the idea of enabling some degree of Web compatibility.)
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/26082
Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <me@gus.host>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Denys Otrishko <shishugi@gmail.com>
|
|
Having an experimental feature behind a flag makes change
if we are expecting significant breaking changes to its API.
Since the Worker API has been essentially stable since
its initial introduction, and no noticeable doubt about
possibly not keeping the feature around has been voiced,
removing the flag and thereby reducing the barrier to experimentation,
and consequently receiving feedback on the implementation,
seems like a good idea.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/25361
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Yuta Hiroto <hello@hiroppy.me>
Reviewed-By: Shingo Inoue <leko.noor@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <tniessen@tnie.de>
Reviewed-By: Masashi Hirano <shisama07@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Weijia Wang <starkwang@126.com>
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
|
|
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/23551
Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <tniessen@tnie.de>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Denys Otrishko <shishugi@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
|
|
The inspection triggered on each assert call eagerly even tough the
assertion was never triggered. That caused significant CPU overhead.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/22903
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
|
|
Look at the status of the `MessagePort` rather than
relying on a timeout.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/22658
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Denys Otrishko <shishugi@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
|
|
Currently, transferring the port on which postMessage is called causes a
segmentation fault, and transferring the target port causes a subsequent
port.onmessage setting to throw, or a deadlock if onmessage is set
before the postMessage. Fix both of these behaviors and align the
methods more closely with the normative definitions in the HTML
Standard.
Also, per spec postMessage must not throw just because the ports are
disentangled. Implement that behavior.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/21540
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
|
