On Mon, 2016-06-20 at 14:26 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Support a JS context per proxy configuration, instead of only one at
FWIW I took a quick look at doing this for the v8 back end, and I'm not
convinced I understand it well enough. It seems to be full of
bizarreness like objects declared on the stack that appear to be unused
but in fact have strange effects based on their mere *existence*, like
which takes the lock in its constructor, and releases it in its
destructor when it goes out of scope.
I would normally consult with the person who wrote the code, who might
be expected to know a little bit more about it... but unfortunately on
this occasion that person seems to be me.
It *does* work as-is, with the current single-context model and just
changing context each time it needs to do a lookup in a different
configuration. So I'm inclined to leave it as it is.
Or maybe just *delete* the v8 back end completely. We added it for
MeeGo because we were based on v8/Chromium there, but I think those
days are long gone. We ought to be moving to duktape anyway.
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse(a)intel.com Intel Corporation