When extending V8, how involved do I/we have to be in making sure microtasks are correctly managed? V8, in general, has almost no documentation outside of the code itself, but I'm finding absolutely nothing on microtasks. Specifically, I'd like to learn about MicrotasksScope and how I need to implement it.
You generally shouldn't need to use MicrotasksScope.
Usually you will either be using MicrotasksPolicy::kExplicit or MicrotasksPolicy::kAuto.
With a kAuto policy, any time the script evaluation stack is emptied, microtasks will be run. With kExplicit, you have to do it yourself, using Isolate::RunMicrotasks.
In most situations, the default (kAuto) will work. If you are chromium or node, using kExplicit will make more sense since you need to time your microtask queue with all the other platform stuff like timers and networking.
As for MicrotasksScope, I personally am not aware of any project that uses it, but it will behave the same as kAuto, except the microtask runs when the stack of MicrotasksScope objects empties, instead of Scripts.
Related
Why and when should we prefer read/writeFileSync to the asynchronous ones on Nodejs in particular for server applications?
For them are blocking functions, you should ever prefer the async versions in production environments.
Anyway, it could make sense to use them during the bootstrap of your application, as an example if you use to load configurations from files and you don't want either to let your fully initialized components to interact with partially initialized ones or design them to be able to work with each other in such a case.
I cannot see any other meaningful use for them.
I prefer to use writeFileSync or readFileSync if it does not make any sense for the program to continue in the event of a failure and there is no other asynchronous work to do. Typically this is at the beginning/end of a program, but I have also used them while "checkpointing" a long running process to make it clear that nothing is changing while the checkpoint is being written to disk.
Of course you can implement this with the asynchronous versions too, it is just more verbose and prone to mistakes.
This is a general question about testing, but I will frame it in the context of Node.js. I'm not as concerned with a particular technology, but it may matter.
In my application, I have several modules that are called upon to do work when my web server receives a request. In the case of some of these modules, I close the request before I call upon them.
What is a good way to test that these modules are doing what they are supposed to do?
The advice here for RSpec is to mock out the work these modules are doing and just ensure that the appropriate methods are being called. This makes sense to me, but in Node.js, since my modules are not global, I don't think I cannot mock out functions without changing my program architecture so that every instance receives instances of objects that it needs1.
[1] This is a well known programming paradigm, but I cannot remember its name right now.
The other option I see is to use setTimeout and take my best guess at when these modules are done with their work.
Neither of these seems ideal.
Am I missing something? Are background processes not tested?
Since you are speaking of integration tests of these background components, a few strategies come to mind.
Take all the asynchronicity out of their operation for test mode. I'm imagining you have some sort of queueing process (that could be a faulty assumption), you toss work into the queue, and then your modules pick up that work and do their task. You could rework your test harness such that the test harness stands in as the queuing mechanism and you effectively get direct control over when the modules execute.
Refactor your modules to take some sort of next callback function. They would end up functioning a bit like Express's middleware layer or how async's each function works, but into each module you'd pass some callback that you call when that module's task is complete. Once all of the modules have reported in, then you can check the state of the program.
Exactly what you already suggested-- wait some amount of time, and if it still isn't done, consider that a failure. Mocha sort of does that, in that if a given test is over a definable threshold, then it's a failure. I don't like this way though, because if you add more tests, they all have to wait the same amount of time.
I'm using lua as the scripting language for handling events in my application, and I don't want to restrict users to writing short handlers - e.g. someone might want to have one handler run an infinite loop, and another handler would interrupt the first one. Obviously, lua doesn't directly support such behavior, so I'm looking for workarounds.
First of all, I'd like to avoid modifying the engine. Is it possible to set up a debug hook that would yield once the state has reached its quota? Judging by the documentation, it shouldn't be hard at all, but I don't know if there are any caveats to this.
And second, can I use lua_close to terminate a thread as I would in actual multithreading?
I've done something similar in the past. Its completely possible to multi-thread on separate Lua states. Be sure to take a look at luaL_lock() and luaL_unlock() (plus associated setup/cleanup), as you will no doubt need this setup (a simple mutex should do the trick).
After that, it should be a fairly simple matter of creating a lock/wait/interrupt API for your handlers.
I've been learning some lua for game development. I heard about coroutines in other languages but really came up on them in lua. I just don't really understand how useful they are, I heard a lot of talk how it can be a way to do multi-threaded things but aren't they run in order? So what benefit would there be from normal functions that also run in order? I'm just not getting how different they are from functions except that they can pause and let another run for a second. Seems like the use case scenarios wouldn't be that huge to me.
Anyone care to shed some light as to why someone would benefit from them?
Especially insight from a game programming perspective would be nice^^
OK, think in terms of game development.
Let's say you're doing a cutscene or perhaps a tutorial. Either way, what you have are an ordered sequence of commands sent to some number of entities. An entity moves to a location, talks to a guy, then walks elsewhere. And so forth. Some commands cannot start until others have finished.
Now look back at how your game works. Every frame, it must process AI, collision tests, animation, rendering, and sound, among possibly other things. You can only think every frame. So how do you put this kind of code in, where you have to wait for some action to complete before doing the next one?
If you built a system in C++, what you would have is something that ran before the AI. It would have a sequence of commands to process. Some of those commands would be instantaneous, like "tell entity X to go here" or "spawn entity Y here." Others would have to wait, such as "tell entity Z to go here and don't process anymore commands until it has gone here." The command processor would have to be called every frame, and it would have to understand complex conditions like "entity is at location" and so forth.
In Lua, it would look like this:
local entityX = game:GetEntity("entityX");
entityX:GoToLocation(locX);
local entityY = game:SpawnEntity("entityY", locY);
local entityZ = game:GetEntity("entityZ");
entityZ:GoToLocation(locZ);
do
coroutine.yield();
until (entityZ:isAtLocation(locZ));
return;
On the C++ size, you would resume this script once per frame until it is done. Once it returns, you know that the cutscene is over, so you can return control to the user.
Look at how simple that Lua logic is. It does exactly what it says it does. It's clear, obvious, and therefore very difficult to get wrong.
The power of coroutines is in being able to partially accomplish some task, wait for a condition to become true, then move on to the next task.
Coroutines in a game:
Easy to use, Easy to screw up when used in many places.
Just be careful and not use it in many places.
Don't make your Entire AI code dependent on Coroutines.
Coroutines are good for making a quick fix when a state is introduced which did not exist before.
This is exactly what java does. Sleep() and Wait()
Both functions are the best ways to make it impossible to debug your game.
If I were you I would completely avoid any code which has to use a Wait() function like a Coroutine does.
OpenGL API is something you should take note of. It never uses a wait() function but instead uses a clean state machine which knows exactly what state what object is at.
If you use coroutines you end with up so many stateless pieces of code that it most surely will be overwhelming to debug.
Coroutines are good when you are making an application like Text Editor ..bank application .. server ..database etc (not a game).
Bad when you are making a game where anything can happen at any point of time, you need to have states.
So, in my view coroutines are a bad way of programming and a excuse to write small stateless code.
But that's just me.
It's more like a religion. Some people believe in coroutines, some don't. The usecase, the implementation and the environment all together will result into a benefit or not.
Don't trust benchmarks which try to proof that coroutines on a multicore cpu are faster than a loop in a single thread: it would be a shame if it were slower!
If this runs later on some hardware where all cores are always under load, it will turn out to be slower - ups...
So there is no benefit per se.
Sometimes it's convenient to use. But if you end up with tons of coroutines yielding and states that went out of scope you'll curse coroutines. But at least it isn't the coroutines framework, it's still you.
We use them on a project I am working on. The main benefit for us is that sometimes with asynchronous code, there are points where it is important that certain parts are run in order because of some dependencies. If you use coroutines, you can force one process to wait for another process to complete. They aren't the only way to do this, but they can be a lot simpler than some other methods.
I'm just not getting how different they are from functions except that
they can pause and let another run for a second.
That's a pretty important property. I worked on a game engine which used them for timing. For example, we had an engine that ran at 10 ticks a second, and you could WaitTicks(x) to wait x number of ticks, and in the user layer, you could run WaitFrames(x) to wait x frames.
Even professional native concurrency libraries use the same kind of yielding behaviour.
Lots of good examples for game developers. I'll give another in the application extension space. Consider the scenario where the application has an engine that can run a users routines in Lua while doing the core functionality in C. If the user needs to wait for the engine to get to a specific state (e.g. waiting for data to be received), you either have to:
multi-thread the C program to run Lua in a separate thread and add in locking and synchronization methods,
abend the Lua routine and retry from the beginning with a state passed to the function to skip anything, least you rerun some code that should only be run once, or
yield the Lua routine and resume it once the state has been reached in C
The third option is the easiest for me to implement, avoiding the need to handle multi-threading on multiple platforms. It also allows the user's code to run unmodified, appearing as if the function they called took a long time.
Redis is very fast. For most part on my machine it is as fast as say native Javascript statements or function calls in node.js. It is easy/painless to write regular Javascript code in node.js because no callbacks are needed. I don't see why it should not be that easy to get/set key/value data in Redis using node.js.
Assuming node.js and Redis are on the same machine, are there any npm libraries out there that allow interacting with Redis on node.js using blocking calls? I know this has to be a C/C++ library interfacing with V8.
I suppose you want to ensure all your redis insert operations have been performed. To achieve that, you can use the MULTI commands to insert keys or perform other operations.
The https://github.com/mranney/node_redis module queues up the commands pushed in multi object, and executes them accordingly.
That way you only require one callback, at the end of exec call.
This seems like a common bear-trap for developers who are trying to get used to Node's evented programming model.
What happens is this: you run into a situation where the async/callback pattern isn't a good fit, you figure what you need is some way of doing blocking code, you ask Google/StackExchange about blocking in Node, and all you get is admonishment on how bad blocking is.
They're right - blocking, ("wait for the result of this before doing anything else"), isn't something you should try to do in Node. But what I think is more helpful is to realize that 99.9% of the time, you're not really looking for a way to do blocking, you're just looking for a way to make your app, "wait for the result of this before going on to do that," which is not exactly the same thing.
Try looking into the idea of "flow control" in Node rather than "blocking" for some design patterns that could be a clearer fit for what you're trying to do. Here's a list of libraries to check out:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/modules#wiki-async-flow
I'm new to Node too, but I'm really digging Async: https://github.com/caolan/async
Blocking code creates a MASSIVE bottleneck.
If you use blocking code your server will become INCREDIBLY slow.
Remember, node is single threaded. So any blocking code, will block node for every connected client.
Your own benchmarking shows it's fast enough for one client. Have you benchmarked it with a 1000 clients? If you try this you will see why blocking code is bad
Whilst Redis is quick it is not instantaneous ... this is why you must use a callback if you want to continue execution ensuring your values are there.
The only way I think you could (and am not suggesting you do) achieve this use a callback with a variable that is the predicate for leaving a timer.