-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
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
[Proxying] Add emscripten_proxy_callback_with_ctx
#18810
Merged
+505
−165
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Should we just called this
emscripten_proxy_async_with_ctx
?I think maybe the
_with_callback
distinction is important, and also obvious the from the args. Ideally I think we could remove the_with_callback
variants that just have the normal versions take optional callbacks in all cases.Another reason is that all the current function start with either
emscripten_proxy_sync
oremscripten_proxy_async
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.
After this full sequence of PRs, we have :
If we really wanted to minimize the API surface, my preference would be to remove
emscripten_proxy_async
andemscripten_proxy_callback*
, leaving onlysync
andpromise
proxying, with and withoutctx
s. The reason I haven't tried to do that minimization yet is that it seems low cost to expose the extra functions if we're going to have nearly identical functions under the hood either way. Users get the most options at negligible maintenance cost to us.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.
Sounds reasonable.
As a general rule, I would rather keep the low level C API as small as possible. For this kind of low level API (which I hope most users will never need to use), I think its fine if we don't include helpers/wrappers/shortcuts.
If we want to provide them in C++ API, or in a higher level set of C APIS, that would be fine, but at least for me it helper conceptually to keep this surface small... but maybe thats just me.
None of this has to block this change.. I don't think refactoring this layer later on is very risky.