Archive for September, 2008

I’m back! (sorta)

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

After a long parental leave I’m now partially back to work. I’ll be working half-time until the end of the year.

I’ll try to get a sense of the status of the modules I work on, and I’m glad to help answer the list of questions people have built up over the last 6 months. I’m on email, and will hang out on irc around 9:00 to 15:00 CET.

Async I/O made “easy” using JavaScript

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

Writing code that does async I/O is a total pain in the ass. And I’ve written a whole lot of async I/O code, so I should know.

However, if you’re working in a language with full support for continuations it is a lot easier. JavaScript doesn’t support continuations fully, but it has generators, which is like a lite-version of continuations. That is part of the reason why I’m interested in JavaScript scripting.

So, I’ve been experimenting with  how to bind GIO-style async operations in JavaScript so that its easier to write async I/O code. I’ve got something going now that looks pretty ok.

Here is an example that calls an async function “$open” to read three files. It also demonstrates how to do calls from one async generator to another.

do_stuff = new AsyncRunner (function  (filenames) {
    for (let i in filenames) {
        var data = yield $open (filenames[i], 0);
        print ("data for " + filenames[i] + "  = " + data);
    }
    var ret = yield do_stuff2.call("other.txt");
    print ("AsyncRunner call returned: " + ret);
});
do_stuff2 = new AsyncRunner (function (filename) {
    var data = yield $open (filename, 0);
    print ("data for " + filename + " = " + data);
    yield "the end (of do_stuff2)"
});
do_stuff.start(null, ["test.txt", "test2.txt"]);

Its IMHO pretty easy to understand. At every async op we yield which suspends execution and restarts it at that point when we have the operation results. The “$” in “$open” is just to make it different from the sync variant and still short.

This code is far easier than it would look in C, where we would have to split out a new function at each async function call. The loop in do_stuff makes this quite tricky to do.

The code that implements this is here. Its somewhat complicated, using things like currying, closures and generators, so read it carefully.

I’d like some feedback on this. Are there any tricks I’ve missed that could make this nicer? I really wish javascript had a macro facility so that the yield keyword could be put inside the async calls and we could avoid the boilderplate around the AsyncRunner creation. I would also like to make the AsyncRunner objects callable like “do_stuff2()”, but that doesn’t seem possible with standard javascript (although it is the AsyncRunner class is implemented natively via the spidermonkey APIs…)

Embeddable languages, an implementation

Tuesday, September 9th, 2008

I read Havocs post on embeddable languages with great joy. I very much agree that this is a good model for writing a larger application. I.E. you write the core of your application in C/C++ and then do the higher levels in an embedded dynamic scripting language. All the reasons Havoc lists are important, especially for the Gnome platform (a swarm-of-processes model where we want to avoid duplicating the platform in each language used).

There are a lot of dynamic scripting languages around, but only a few of them really qualify as embeddable languages in the form Havoc proposes. I would say the list is basically just: lua, JavaScript and some of the lisp dialects.

I’m far from a JavaScript lover, but it seems pretty obvious to me that from these alternatives it is the best choice. For a variety of reasons:

  • Its a modern dynamic language
    Its dynamically typed, it has precise gargabe collection, lambda functions, generators, array comprehension, etc
  • Its object oriented (sorta)
    We want to wrap the GObject type system which is object oriented, so this is important. The JavaScript prototype-based model is a bit weird, but its simple and it works.
  • It has no “platform” of its own
    If we inject the Gnome platform (Gtk+, Gio, etc) into JavaScript it doesn’t have to fight with any “native” versions of the same functionallity, and we won’t be duplicating anything causing bloat and conversions. (JS does have a Date object, but that is basically all.)
  • Lots of people know it, and if not there are great docs
    Chances of finding someone who knows JS is far higher than finding someone who knows e.g. lua or scheme, and having a large set of potential developers is important for a free software project.
  • Lots of activity around the language and implementations
    The language continually evolves, and there is a standards body trying to shephard this. There is also a multitude of competetive implementations, each trying to be best. This leads to things like the huge performance increases with TraceMoney and Google v8. Such performance work and focus is unlikely to happen in smaller and less used languages.

To experiment with this I started working on GScript (gscript module in gnome svn). It is two things. First of all its an API for easily embedding JavaScript (using SpiderMonkey atm) in a Gtk+ application. Secondly its a binding of GObject and GObject-based libraries to JavaScript.

Here is a quick example:

GScriptEngine *engine;
GScriptValue *res;
engine = g_script_engine_new ();
res = g_script_engine_evaluate_script (engine, "5+5");
g_print ("script result: %s", g_script_value_to_string (res));
g_object_unref (res);

If you want to expose a gobject (such as a GtkLabel) as a global property in JS you can do:

GtkLabel *label = gtk_label_new ("Test");
GScriptValue *val = g_script_value_new_from_gobject (G_OBJECT (label));
g_script_value_set_property (g_script_engine_get_global (engine), "the_label", val);

Then you can access the label from  javascript by the name “the_label”. You can read and set the object properties, connect and emit the signals and call all the methods that are availible via introspection.

You can also easily call from javascript into native code.

static GScriptValue *native_function (int n_args, GScriptValue **args);
GScriptValue *f = g_script_value_new_from_function (native_function, num_args);
g_script_value_set_property (g_script_engine_get_global (engine), "function", f);

The JavaScript wrappers are fully automatic, and lazily binds objects/classes as  they are used in JS. The object properties and signal information are extracted from the GType machinery. Method calls are done using the new GObject-Introspection system.

More work is clearly needed on the details of the JS bindings, but this is already a usable piece of code. I’m very interested in feedback about interest in something like this, and discussions about how the JS bindings should look.