-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 200
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
Do I have permission to refactor this? #527
Comments
@oplanre I don't run things around here to make the call, but we are (very!) heavy users of the library and push it maybe further than its original intent...so I have a couple of opinions. My main question would be...to what end? I love refactoring code and often have to resist doing it purely for the sake of making it look nice, because even with all the care and best intentions in the world, refactoring an entire project is a big risk. There are also a bunch of open issues; each of which could justify an element of refactoring AND also produces something positive from the change other than just nicer code. Perhaps those would be a good place to start? I'm not sure you'd be able to get any kind of promise to merge an entire refactoring, though. Like I mentioned above - it's a huge review/testing job afterwards and without any actual idea of what the new code would look like, whether it's actually better/faster etc. I'd certainly be pleased to see more contributors though, it's a great project that holds up REALLY well to everything we put it through and would love to see it grow further. |
Three main things that i would like to achieve:
Extra: We have an experimental A+ Promise impl with fibers, still early stages but i would like some extra eyes\input on it. I understand that you can't promise to just accept my refactor upfront, I guess a better way to phrase it would be: Will you seriously consider my refactor or would I be better off with a fork? Cheers, |
Hey Could parts (cleaner build, gen_stub, namespaces, basic non-breaking cleanup/preparation, etc) be done separately/initially ahead of a full refactor? I'd imagine those things would be beneficial even before making widespread changes. Breaking the work up into smaller chunks rather than a single, huge rebuild would certainly make further merges more likely, I'd imagine. So overall:
As for going that far though, I'd imagine @stesie would have an opinion or two there. For use case context, one of our main approaches (rather than single-run-and-get-a-primitive-result) is to create object instances based on a user-generated JS "hooks" class within V8Js - that is then returned to PHP and the various methods (where provided) are executed when necessary. The overall V8Js instance (and the instance returned via an Cheers |
I can bring this up to modern c++ standards, i just want to know if I have permission to, and that you would merge the request as long as you find no issues in the code (don't want to waste my time). Most of the c++ code will change but the userland api will remain backward compatible(for the most part e.g i am considering a V8 or V8JS namespace instead of the current global classes)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: