That makes sense Sundar; thank you for the great explanation! You mentioned
that a weak-ref based mapping would be required to fix this. I am assuming
that this would involve ScriptObject maintaining a weakref to a
ScriptObjectMirror instance? You also said that this would bring added
complexity that you would have to deal with. Can you elaborate on that a
little bit?
I played around with the source in ScriptObject and ScriptObjectMirror a
little bit, and added a weakref to a mirror instance inside ScriptObject.
The weakref in the ScriptObject is initialized via the ScriptObjectMirror
constructor. In ScriptObjectMirror#wrap, it looks for the mirror first, and
returns it if it is not null. Otherwise it creates a new instance and sets
the weakref to that instance. This seemed to fix the original issue I was
facing. I ran the nashorn test suite and there weren't any failures after
my changes. However, I am sure there are subtleties and nuances I am not
taking into account, and so I'm curious what kind of issues could arise
from my change. I know this is a complex issue, but I would like to learn
more about it and see if I can take a stab at solving it. Thanks!
Vivin
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan <
sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Addressing your question on j.u.IdentityHashMap. I assume the rest of the
> questions were addressed by Attila.
>
> * Assume that we implement === for ScriptObjectMirror to be (JVM) object
> identity comparison of the *wrapped* underlying objects (as in your
> attempted patch) rather than identity of ScriptObjectMirror objects, what
> would happen?
>
> Script writer would see === being true for potentially two *different*
> ScriptObjectMirror instances. Based on the mental model that === means
> strict object identity, s/he then may try to use ScriptObjectMirror objects
> in a java.util.IdentityHashMap! IdentityHashMap itself would use JVM
> object identity -- so two different ScriptObjectMirror instances m1, m2
> wrapping *same* underlying script object "sobj" are different
> for IdentityHashMap implementation. But, this breaks the assumption by
> the script writer! s/he thinks m1 === m2 true => IdentityHashMap should
> treat m1 and m2 are identical! That is not the case and so model breaks for
> script authors. That is why I said, if at all we want to preserve script
> object identity with ScriptObjectMirror instances, we'd need to implement
> weakref based mirroring.
>
> -Sundar
>
>
> On 12/23/2015 1:41 AM, Vivin Suresh Paliath wrote:
>
> Hi Sundar,
>
> Thank you for the explanation! I hope I am not being too obtuse - I'm just
> trying to get a handle on how things work!
>
> Object identity is implemented strictly per ECMAScript spec - which says
>> === evals to be evaluated true only if "same object". Why should we treat
>> ScriptObjectMirrors as special for identity comparison
>
>
> In my view, ScriptObjectMirrors should be treated the same only if it is
> made abundantly clear that the JavaScript object you're working with in
> Nashorn, may sometimes be a wrapped object and not the actual object
> itself. The problem is that right now there is no easy way to discern that,
> and anticipate the side effects that come with that distinction. With
> respect to the ES spec, I agree that === should evaluate to true if the
> objects are the same object, and that holds true for the most part even if
> the objects are wrapped. But the problem arises when you try to compare a
> property of an object (which is itself a JS object) with itself, where the
> parent object happens to be foreign. That's when you end up in a situation
> where obj === obj returns true, but obj.prop === obj.prop returns false.
> The assumption I am making is invalid only if I *know* that they are
> mirror objects, but as I mentioned before, there is no easy way to
> determine that. I can see a case where obj.prop is actually a getter that
> returns a new instance of an object each time, and here obj.prop ===
> obj.prop would return false, but that fact would be evident from the source
> of the JS object itself, and wouldn't be due to how foreign script-objects
> are implemented in Nashorn.
>
> For eg. think of using that in j.u.IdentityHashMap and expect it work!
>> [=== returns true and so IdentityHashMap should work as expected -- but it
>> won't because IdentityHashMap goes by JVM level object identity!
>
>
> Perhaps I am not understanding this example correctly. Are you saying that
> inserts into the IdentityHashMap wouldn't work as expected? But wouldn't
> the only comparison that is being performed be == in Java, which would be
> comparing the ScriptObjectMirror instances anyway (i.e., the same behavior
> as now). I tried out the following with and without my changes and I got
> the same output (size of the map is 3):
>
> engine.eval("function Foo(src) { this.src = src }; var e = { x: new
> Foo(\"what\") };");
>
>
> ScriptContext c = new SimpleScriptContext();
> c.setBindings(engine.createBindings(), ScriptContext.ENGINE_SCOPE);
>
> c.getBindings(ScriptContext.ENGINE_SCOPE).putAll(engine.getBindings(ScriptContext.ENGINE_SCOPE));
>
> c.getBindings(ScriptContext.ENGINE_SCOPE).put("ihm", new
> IdentityHashMap<Object, Object>());
> engine.eval("ihm.put(e.x, 1); ihm.put(e.x, 2); ihm.put(e.x, 3);
> print(ihm.size());", c);
>
>
> The one discrepancy that would exist is if you perform an === comparison
> in JavaScript against something from the map.
>
> You're creating multiple ScriptContexts and associate ENGINE_SCOPE
>> Bindings to isolate. And yet you want objects from "isolated" worlds to be
>> treated exactly like "current isolate world".
>
>
> The new contexts I create know nothing about each other; they only "know"
> (in the sense that the "global" runtime-library objects are available) the
> objects from the main context (and only because I copy them over). Also, I
> am not treating the object from the main isolated-world the same way as the
> one in the current one; I am really only trying to compare references (and
> that too against themselves).
>
>
>> If you do not want that kind of multiple ECMAScript global scope
>> isolation at all, why not load your library/framework scripts before
>> loading the user scripts? If you want to avoid clash b/w different user
>> scripts (i.e., globals in user's scripts for eg.), you could implement
>> "require" like primitive such as the one here
>
>
> This is actually exactly what I am doing, and I am using require-like
> functionality as well. The problem arises when I try to dereference a
> property of an object that is a foreign script-object. For example, let's
> assume the default context of the script engine has an "enum" SomeEnum,
> with the enum CONST. When I get a custom script, I create a new context
> (using createBindings) and copy everything over. So now the new context has
> a foreign object called SomeEnum. Now if I do SomeEnum === SomeEnum, I get
> back true, but SomeEnum.CONST === SomeEnum.CONST returns false. Is this
> what you were saying weak-refs would solve?
>
> If you do want isolation and still want singleton enum-like objects, why
>> not implement those in Java and expose to scripts? These would then be real
>> JVM singleton objects and therefore usual identity would work.
>
>
> That would be a workaround, but some code that I insert are autogenerated
> JS equivalents of POJOs. Enums are implemented using this
> <https://github.com/vivin/enumjs> library, which gives you type-safe
> enums in JavaScript as well. So I cannot assume upfront what kind of Java
> enums are going to be used since they come from a different project
> entirely.
>
> Based on what you said, I agree with you that === is probably the wrong
> place to do this and it seems that the thing that really needs to be fixed
> is ensuring that properties of foreign objects return the same mirror
> instance whenever dereferenced. As I said before, I can't think of a case
> where obj.prop === obj.prop would return false *unless* prop is a
> calculated property that returns a new instance of some object each time.
> Even if that were the case, I don't see how that behavior would be broken
> if the Nashorn runtime ensured that we got back the same mirror instance.
> Regardless, wouldn't it notice that prop actually delegates to a getter
> function, and then run that? But in the case where prop is a reference to
> an actual object, you would still have the expected behavior. I
> understand that these foreign objects are wrapped, but I am questioning
> whether someone really needs to *know* that they are, if they are writing
> JS code on Nashorn.
>
> My original aim when I was doing this was to provide a single
> script-engine instance so that I could take advantage of optimizations on
> common code, while providing isolated execution contexts. Objects in the
> engine's default context are "read-only" and the isolated contexts cannot
> really mess with them. Really what I'm after is ensuring that library-code
> gets optimized over time and that contexts can't step over each other. So
> if such an approach gives me that, then it would definitely make things a
> lot easier. Also, is there somewhere I can read about the optimizations
> Nashorn makes in different cases? I'm specifically wondering about the
> following:
>
> 1. Does Nashorn optimize pre-compiled JS code each time it is
> evaluated? Are the optimizations persisted to the compiled representation?
> 2. If I repeatedly evaluate the same JS code in the same
> script-engine, but in different contexts, is that code optimized? Or are
> the optimizations discarded once the context is gone?
>
> If I can still get these optimizations, then I can simply just precompile
> and/or re-evaluate the library code in each new context and that would do
> away with this issue and make things much easier.
>
> Thank you once again, and I apologize for so many questions!
>
> Vivin
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan <
> <sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com>
> sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> May be I should explain the background on how nashorn treates
>> "foreign/host" objects. Nashorn implements object access primitives like
>> "get_property, set_property, get_method, call, new" via a series of
>> dynalink linkers ( <http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/276>
>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/276). There is a linker for it's own
>> objects (ScriptObject instances), there is one for Java objects ("beans
>> linkers"), "foreign 'script' objects" (ScriptObjectMirrors). It allows even
>> user specified linkers picked up via java.util.ServiceLoader mechanism.
>> (See
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/nashorn/file/74ddd1339c57/samples/dynalink
>> ).
>>
>> But, looping (via for, for..each), identity and other operators are
>> natively implemented in Nashorn. Object identity is implemented strictly
>> per ECMAScript spec - which says === evals to be evaluated true only if
>> "same object". Why should we treat ScriptObjectMirrors as special for
>> identity comparison (and who knows what problems it could cause than the
>> ones it solves!). For eg. think of using that in j.u.IdentityHashMap and
>> expect it work! [=== returns true and so IdentityHashMap should work as
>> expected -- but it won't because IdentityHashMap goes by JVM level object
>> identity! As I said, it at all we want mirrors to preserve identity, we
>> need weak refs.
>>
>> /
>>
>> Regarding host objects, even if they are different from native objects,
>> it seems strange to me that the semantics of things like === would be
>> different especially when doing something like obj.prop === obj.prop. The
>> fact that such a statement could ever return false is non-obvious unless
>> implementation details of the runtime are known.
>> /
>>
>> The fact that you're assuming your host objects return "same object" for
>> doing two "obj.prop" evals -- is an assumption about mirror objects! Why do
>> you think such as assumption to be true for mirrors -- whose sole purpose
>> is to provide easy access to objects. You're creating multiple
>> ScriptContexts and associate ENGINE_SCOPE Bindings to isolate. And yet you
>> want objects from "isolated" worlds to be treated exactly like "current
>> isolate world".
>>
>> If you do not want that kind of multiple ECMAScript global scope
>> isolation at all, why not load your library/framework scripts before
>> loading the user scripts? If you want to avoid clash b/w different user
>> scripts (i.e., globals in user's scripts for eg.), you could implement
>> "require" like primitive such as the one here ->
>> https://github.com/walterhiggins/commonjs-modules-javax-script
>>
>> If you do want isolation and still want singleton enum-like objects, why
>> not implement those in Java and expose to scripts? These would then be real
>> JVM singleton objects and therefore usual identity would work.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> -Sundar
>>
>>
>> On 12/22/2015 12:25 PM, Vivin Suresh Paliath wrote:
>>
>> I am looking at it from the perspective of someone writing code that is
>> expect to run in JavaScript environment. I will describe the runtime
>> environment I have set up. Perhaps what I am running into is an artifact of
>> my approach.
>>
>> I have a single script engine instance. In this context I evaluate some
>> JS source that populates the JS global scope with some objects. When a
>> custom script needs to be evaluated, I create a new script context with a
>> new global. Then I copy over all bindings from the parent script context
>> into the new one. I also have a module system. When a custom script
>> requests a core module, the module source is evaluated in the main script
>> context and a single instance of the object exposed by the module source is
>> cached. This way the source only needs to be evaluated once and benefits
>> from optimizations.
>>
>> The problem I am running into has to do with some singleton objects I
>> expose; kind of like enums, and can be compared using ===. I am using a JS
>> library for this and this behavior holds in the browser and on NodeJS. On
>> Nashorn, because the instances were created in a different context, ===
>> returns false.
>>
>> Is there a better way to accomplish what I am doing?
>>
>> Regarding host objects, even if they are different from native objects,
>> it seems strange to me that the semantics of things like === would be
>> different especially when doing something like obj.prop === obj.prop. The
>> fact that such a statement could ever return false is non-obvious unless
>> implementation details of the runtime are known.
>>
>> I am trying to expose my runtime environment as a JS environment where a
>> developer can write custom scripts using some runtime libraries and
>> utilities. So behavior like this would be very surprising, and requiring
>> them to know that objects might be from different contexts seems like
>> abstraction leakage from the way I have implemented the runtime. They
>> shouldn't have to know whether an object is a wrapped ScriptObjectMirror
>> instance, since from their point of view they are just working with JS
>> objects, and they don't know that they are from different "worlds" since
>> they don't even know that there are different worlds.
>>
>> I guess I am also having a hard time seeing a scenario where === would
>> need to return false in the scenario I described, unless as a developer you
>> knew there were different worlds. Even then, it would essentially make some
>> forms of equality comparisons impossible (e.g., o.prop === o.prop if o is
>> foreign).
>>
>> Does the snippet I posted earlier make sense?
>> On Dec 21, 2015 9:10 PM, "Sundararajan Athijegannathan" <
>> <sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com>
>> sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I'm not sure if depending on === in the code is a good
>>> approach -- particularly, for objects that are not script objects of the
>>> current world. These are to be treated like "host objects" in
>>> ECMAScript-speak. i.e., regular rules of script objects don't always apply
>>> to 'host objects'. The === operator for Java objects is interpreted as
>>> object identity -- and the same rule for ScriptObjectMirrors -- in that
>>> both are "host objects" from the standpoint of the 'current world'.
>>>
>>> -Sundar
>>>
>>> On 12/22/2015 9:34 AM, Vivin Suresh Paliath wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the response! I understand that in general it would be
>>> difficult for foreign objects. But this seems like surprising behavior
>>> given that these are both JavaScript objects. That they are unequal seems
>>> to be an artifact of the implementation (the fact that JS objects from
>>> different contexts are treated as foreign). Could JS objects be treated
>>> differently?
>>>
>>> After going through the Nashorn source, I decided to try this very naive
>>> approach adding the following test to ScriptRuntime#equalSameTypeValues:
>>>
>>> if(x instanceof ScriptObjectMirror && y instanceof ScriptObjectMirror) {
>>> return x.equals(y);
>>> }
>>>
>>> After this change, the code now returns true, because
>>> ScriptObjectMirror#equals compares the actual objects. I am not sure if
>>> this breaks anything though (been trying to run the test suite, but end up
>>> getting some errors from make). Is there a reason this particular fix is a
>>> bad idea? I can't think of a particular reason why. From the perspective of
>>> the runtime, I can't see a reason why those two objects should be
>>> considered different.
>>>
>>> I will investigate the eval approach, but ideally I would like something
>>> that doesn't impose any changes on the JS code. I am developing a simple
>>> runtime that exposes some objects and utilities, and where custom scripts
>>> can run in their own contexts. The fact that === returns false in these
>>> cases leads to some very strange behavior.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan <
>>> <sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com>
>>> sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless we create mirrors as weak refs internally (i.e., maintain 1:1
>>>> with underlying foreign object reference), there is no easy solution. And
>>>> maintaining such weak refs is unnecessarily complex. "Foreign object"
>>>> call/access is mean to be just a "lightweight wrapper" based access. That
>>>> said, you can do the === on the foreign context itself. You can call
>>>> ScriptObjectMirror's eval to evaluate === test in that foreign context.
>>>> That would get right object identity.
>>>>
>>>> -Sundar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/22/2015 4:26 AM, Vivin Suresh Paliath wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One more thing I noticed is that apparently a new ScriptObjectMirror
>>>>> instance is probably being created each time x is dereferenced, so
>>>>> "e.x ===
>>>>> e.x" also returns "false".
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Vivin Suresh Paliath <
>>>>> vivin.pali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I ran into an issue where === returns false even when both should be
>>>>>> pointing to the same object. I'm assuming this is because one of the
>>>>>> objects is wrapped by a ScriptObjectMirror, because it was defined in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> different context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's some code that demonstrates this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ScriptEngine engine = new
>>>>>> NashornScriptEngineFactory().getScriptEngine(
>>>>>> new String[] { "-strict" }
>>>>>> );
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try {
>>>>>> engine.eval("function Foo(src) { this.src = src }; var e
>>>>>> = {
>>>>>> x: new Foo(\"what\") };");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ScriptContext c = new SimpleScriptContext();
>>>>>> c.setBindings(engine.createBindings(),
>>>>>> ScriptContext.ENGINE_SCOPE);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> c.getBindings(ScriptContext.ENGINE_SCOPE).putAll(engine.getBindings(ScriptContext.ENGINE_SCOPE));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> System.out.println(engine.eval("var z = e.x; z ===
>>>>>> e.x;", c));
>>>>>> } catch(Exception e) {
>>>>>> throw new RuntimeException(e);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This prints out "false". Is there a way around this? I am also
>>>>>> explicitly
>>>>>> copying over all the bindings from the parent scope into the new
>>>>>> scope so
>>>>>> that I have access to "e". Could this be the source of the problem,
>>>>>> and if
>>>>>> so, is there a better way to achieve what I'm trying to do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ruin untold;
>>>>>> And thine own sadness,
>>>>>> Sing in the grass,
>>>>>> When eve has forgot, that no more hear common things that gleam and
>>>>>> pass;
>>>>>> But seek alone to lip, sad Rose of love and ruin untold;
>>>>>> And thine own mother
>>>>>> Can know it as I know
>>>>>> More than another
>>>>>> What makes your own sadness,
>>>>>> Set in her eyes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> map{@n=split//;$j.=$n[0]x$n[1]}split/:/,"01:11:02".
>>>>>> ":11:01:11:02:13:01:11:01:11:01:13:02:12:01:13:01".
>>>>>> ":11:04:11:06:12:04:11:01:12:01:13:02:12:01:14:01".
>>>>>> ":13:01:11:03:12:01:11:04:12:02:11:01:11:01:13:02".
>>>>>> ":11:03:11:06:11:01:11:05:12:02:11:01:11:01:13:02".
>>>>>> ":11:02:12:01:12:04:11:06:12:01:11:04:12:04:11:01".
>>>>>> ":12:03:12:01:12:01:11:01:12:01:12:02:11:01:11:01".
>>>>>> ":13:02:11:01:02:11:01:12:02";map{print chr unpack"
>>>>>> i",pack"B32",$_}$j=~m/.{8}/g
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ruin untold;
>>> And thine own sadness,
>>> Sing in the grass,
>>> When eve has forgot, that no more hear common things that gleam and pass;
>>> But seek alone to lip, sad Rose of love and ruin untold;
>>> And thine own mother
>>> Can know it as I know
>>> More than another
>>> What makes your own sadness,
>>> Set in her eyes.
>>>
>>> map{@n=split//;$j.=$n[0]x$n[1]}split/:/,"01:11:02".
>>> ":11:01:11:02:13:01:11:01:11:01:13:02:12:01:13:01".
>>> ":11:04:11:06:12:04:11:01:12:01:13:02:12:01:14:01".
>>> ":13:01:11:03:12:01:11:04:12:02:11:01:11:01:13:02".
>>> ":11:03:11:06:11:01:11:05:12:02:11:01:11:01:13:02".
>>> ":11:02:12:01:12:04:11:06:12:01:11:04:12:04:11:01".
>>> ":12:03:12:01:12:01:11:01:12:01:12:02:11:01:11:01".
>>> ":13:02:11:01:02:11:01:12:02";map{print chr unpack"
>>> i",pack"B32",$_}$j=~m/.{8}/g
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ruin untold;
> And thine own sadness,
> Sing in the grass,
> When eve has forgot, that no more hear common things that gleam and pass;
> But seek alone to lip, sad Rose of love and ruin untold;
> And thine own mother
> Can know it as I know
> More than another
> What makes your own sadness,
> Set in her eyes.
>
> map{@n=split//;$j.=$n[0]x$n[1]}split/:/,"01:11:02".
> ":11:01:11:02:13:01:11:01:11:01:13:02:12:01:13:01".
> ":11:04:11:06:12:04:11:01:12:01:13:02:12:01:14:01".
> ":13:01:11:03:12:01:11:04:12:02:11:01:11:01:13:02".
> ":11:03:11:06:11:01:11:05:12:02:11:01:11:01:13:02".
> ":11:02:12:01:12:04:11:06:12:01:11:04:12:04:11:01".
> ":12:03:12:01:12:01:11:01:12:01:12:02:11:01:11:01".
> ":13:02:11:01:02:11:01:12:02";map{print chr unpack"
> i",pack"B32",$_}$j=~m/.{8}/g
>
>
>
--
Ruin untold;
And thine own sadness,
Sing in the grass,
When eve has forgot, that no more hear common things that gleam and pass;
But seek alone to lip, sad Rose of love and ruin untold;
And thine own mother
Can know it as I know
More than another
What makes your own sadness,
Set in her eyes.
map{@n=split//;$j.=$n[0]x$n[1]}split/:/,"01:11:02".
":11:01:11:02:13:01:11:01:11:01:13:02:12:01:13:01".
":11:04:11:06:12:04:11:01:12:01:13:02:12:01:14:01".
":13:01:11:03:12:01:11:04:12:02:11:01:11:01:13:02".
":11:03:11:06:11:01:11:05:12:02:11:01:11:01:13:02".
":11:02:12:01:12:04:11:06:12:01:11:04:12:04:11:01".
":12:03:12:01:12:01:11:01:12:01:12:02:11:01:11:01".
":13:02:11:01:02:11:01:12:02";map{print chr unpack"
i",pack"B32",$_}$j=~m/.{8}/g
