On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 5/29/16 6:17 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: >> >> Do we really need the ForThread part? > > > I wanted to make it clear that we're getting something that's OK to use > without synchronization, but maybe that's redundant and we can just have a > dom::GetJSContext() or something. dom::JSContext() would have ambiguity > issues, of course. I don't have super-strong opinions here. > >> Is the long term plan to merge >> JSRuntime and JSContext, or are they going to remain distinct >> indefinitely? > > > Unclear. See discussion the SpiderMonkey folks are having starting at > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=650361#c27
Segregating the thread-specific and thread-agnostic parts into separate classes seems like a good idea. Given that it only makes sense to use a thread-specific object on that thread, and it only makes sense to get the thread-agnostic object here *from TLS* on one thread, I don't think we need any "thread" naming. - Kyle _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
