Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Proposal of Polling Fix #8

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Proposal of Polling Fix #8

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b7a2088
Proposal of Polling Fix
wentout Oct 21, 2018
0f08481
Update PollingFix
wentout Oct 23, 2018
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
20 changes: 20 additions & 0 deletions 2016-02-26-Errors/Round1/UserModeQueuing/PollingFix
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
The described **possible solution** will break the conditions of the other contexts if there will be more than one context.

Much better way is to try to fix the behaviour of that task scheduler with the JS core itself.

Nowdays, after three years we have almost good working hooks implementation: https://nodejs.org/api/async_hooks.html

But the core problem is not the tracking of Asynchronous context.

The issue we are looking for is about the scope split.

Please look bit in deep.
When you are adding the work -- the function that will be executed in the task scheduler
-- you will create the context of that function too.

So, if there will be the way to somehow notify userlad about the new context creation, it will solve the issue in general.
If that sort of notification will be done via async_hooks, it will create a model, when there is not necessary
to make any changes in the libraries, which works through this behaviour.


So, the description is here: https://github.com/nodejs/diagnostics/issues/249