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
Implement support for JS-backed WritableStreams in JSRPC #2066
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
removeSink is used to extract the WritableStreamSink that is owned by a WritableStream using the original implementation. It is currently used in only a few places in the codebase, none of which are necessary. There are two pending changes refactoring those two places to avoid using `removeSink()` as currently defined. Replacing the version of `removeSink` that returns the `WritableStreamSink` with a `detach()` method that returns nothing covers the sockets use case where we call the method then immediately throw away the sink. Once this and the other PRs land, we can safely remove removeSink entirely. Refs: #2061 Refs: #2050 Refs: #2066
58cbfec
to
ad36a3d
Compare
ad36a3d
to
5c6a775
Compare
@kentonv ...this should be ready for review! |
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.
Sorry for slow review, this slipped past my inbox somehow.
9a34e23
to
4a8a2bb
Compare
4a8a2bb
to
3c989ac
Compare
Reminder that GitHub loses information about force-pushes when you do two in a row which makes it hard to incrementally review. I think I've figured out that this diff represents the changes since I last reviewed, but in the future can you please post a list of fixup commits? The |
First pass at implementing support for JS-backed WritableStreams with JSRPC.
Provides an alternative adapter that will acquire the isolate lock on each write/close call, passing the operation off to the JS interface. This is obviously not as efficient as the original adapter used for
WritableStreamSink
but not yet sure if there's a better approach.