| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
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.
|
@addaleax build started: https://ci.nodejs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/detail/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/2149/pipeline |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/19948/ /cc @nodejs/workers |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
😆
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@addaleax - I was under the impression that the module name worker_threads is a place holder that can converge and freeze into something else before exiting experimental. Isn't that so? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@gireeshpunathil If you want to pick another name, we can take up that conversation again – I think it’s not too late if we really want to changes this, but I’m not sure it’s worth it. worker_threads is accurate and not too explicit as a name, imo. It wasn’t my first choice, but I’d rather leave it as it is than start the whole discussion again (and break the existing code that is out there, including guides/tutorials, even if it’s currently still a flagged feature). |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@addaleax - thanks, I agree. I was just making sure my understanding around the naming is correct, and wanted to confirm it as this is the last opportunity to talk about that, if at all. Agree that worker_threads is an appropriate name within the constraints (being meaningful and not overlapping with used names). |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, assuming the feature is still documented as experimental.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Landed in 63d4cae Thanks for the reviews, everyone! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
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: nodejs#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>
This is similar to nodejs#25361 in functionality, but allows avoiding some backporting pain for v11.x. Refs: nodejs#25361
This is a trimmed-down version of 63d4cae that avoids backporting pain for v11.x. The remainder of the original commit can be cherry-picked later, once other PRs have been backported first. --- 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. Refs: nodejs#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>
|
This is functionally backported to v11.x but some parts are not yet backported which await other commits to be backported first. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This is a trimmed-down version of 63d4cae that avoids backporting pain for v11.x. The remainder of the original commit can be cherry-picked later, once other PRs have been backported first. PR-URL: #25404 Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> --- Original commit message --- 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. Refs: #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>
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: #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>
This is similar to nodejs#25361 in functionality, but allows avoiding some backporting pain for v11.x. PR-URL: nodejs#25404 Refs: nodejs#25361 Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
This is a trimmed-down version of 63d4cae that avoids backporting pain for v11.x. The remainder of the original commit can be cherry-picked later, once other PRs have been backported first. PR-URL: nodejs#25404 Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> --- Original commit message --- 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. Refs: nodejs#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>
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: nodejs#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>
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: nodejs#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>
Notable Changes
* compression / zlib:
* Added brotli support (Anna Henningsen and Zach Vacura)
nodejs#24938
* console:
* Added `inspectOptions` option (Ruben Bridgewater)
nodejs#24978
* crypto:
* Always accept private keys as public keys (Tobias Nießen)
nodejs#25217
* deps:
* Upgrade npm to v6.5.0 (Jordan Harband)
nodejs#25234
* fs:
* Use internalBinding('fs') internally instead of
process.binding('fs') (Masashi Hirano)
nodejs#22478
* http(s):
* Support overriding http\\s.globalAgent (Roy Sommer)
nodejs#25170
* util:
* Inspect ArrayBuffers contents closely (Ruben Bridgewater)
nodejs#25006
* worker:
* Expose workers by default and remove `--experimental-worker` flag
(Anna Henningsen) nodejs#25361
PR-URL: nodejs#25537
Notable Changes
* compression / zlib:
* Added brotli support (Anna Henningsen and Zach Vacura)
#24938
* console:
* Added `inspectOptions` option (Ruben Bridgewater)
#24978
* crypto:
* Always accept private keys as public keys (Tobias Nießen)
#25217
* deps:
* Upgrade npm to v6.5.0 (Jordan Harband)
#25234
* fs:
* Use internalBinding('fs') internally instead of
process.binding('fs') (Masashi Hirano)
#22478
* http(s):
* Support overriding http\\s.globalAgent (Roy Sommer)
#25170
* util:
* Inspect ArrayBuffers contents closely (Ruben Bridgewater)
#25006
* worker:
* Expose workers by default and remove `--experimental-worker` flag
(Anna Henningsen) #25361
PR-URL: #25537
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
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.
Checklist