Alternative to creating references to non-objects #149

Activity

1. gabrielschulhof commented on Sep 29, 2017

   

   gabrielschulhof

   on Sep 29, 2017 via email

   Contributor

   More actions

   How about storing the arguments in a JS array and then creating a reference to the array. Below is the pseudocode skeleton: ```c napi_create_array(); for (index = 0; index < argc; index++) { napi_set_element(array, index, argv[index]); } napi_create_reference(array, &array_ref); ```

   …

   On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Mika Fischer ***@***.***> wrote: nodejs/node#15289 <nodejs/node#15289> removed the possibility to create references to values that are not objects. My use-case is the following. I want to store arguments given to my function persistently. Then some time later I want to call a callback function with those parameters. In the past I just used a vector<Reference<Value>>. Now I don't quite understand how I'm supposed to do it... As an example, see this test: https://github.com/mika- fischer/napi-thread-safe-callback/blob/e03dda83fb1d2a63fb8332406e2436 fc18a63fba/test/tests.cpp#L36-L51 — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#149>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA7k0R_0u2jIKmgFqS4_joy9vjAFLR7vks5snK8cgaJpZM4PoYFz> .
2. mika-fischer commented on Sep 29, 2017

   

   mika-fischer

   on Sep 29, 2017

   Author

   More actions

   OK, fair enough, that's slightly inconcenient, but not too bad...

   But just so I understand: There's now no way at all to just hold onto say a string literal across calls into C++?
3. gabrielschulhof commented on Sep 29, 2017

   

   gabrielschulhof

   on Sep 29, 2017 via email

   Contributor

   More actions

   There is. You can convert it to a `char *` and then pass the `char *` to `napi_wrap()`. In general, you need to convert to a native type, store the data in a heap-allocated buffer, and use `napi_wrap()`.

   …

   On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Mika Fischer ***@***.***> wrote: OK, fair enough, that's slightly inconcenient, but not too bad... But just so I understand: There's now no way at all to just hold onto say a string literal across calls into C++? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#149 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA7k0X7gRpG7-BD63rsy-k1FGKdGbZkcks5snMPPgaJpZM4PoYFz> .
4. mika-fischer commented on Sep 29, 2017

   

   mika-fischer

   on Sep 29, 2017

   Author

   More actions

   Sure, I meant keeping the JS string without converting to C++. That seems impossible now, right?

   And while converting a string to C++ by itself is not that bad, in cases like this where you get passed a Value and you don't care what it is, you just want to hold on to it for later use, things are a lot more complicated than before if you don't want to use this boxing trick...
5. gabrielschulhof commented on Sep 29, 2017

   

   gabrielschulhof

   on Sep 29, 2017 via email

   Contributor

   More actions

   It is indeed more complicated. Nevertheless, it is necessary, because not all engines support making references to non-object types.

   …

   On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Mika Fischer ***@***.***> wrote: Sure, I meant keeping the JS string without converting to C++. That seems impossible now, right? And while converting a string to C++ by itself is not that bad, in cases like this where you get passed a Value and you don't care what it is, you just want to hold on to it for later use, things are a lot more complicated than before if you don't want to use this boxing trick... — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#149 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA7k0Yh1YomF_IR2IaoYrIa4Kv9JZAUWks5snMupgaJpZM4PoYFz> .
6. mika-fischer commented on Sep 29, 2017

   

   mika-fischer

   on Sep 29, 2017

   Author

   More actions

   Ah I see, that makes sense then. Thanks for the explanations!
7. mika-fischer

   closed this as completedon Sep 29, 2017