Good point. I should clarify: Complaining out in the open is perfectly fine, too. But, I want people to know that if this affects them, and they don't want to publicize the inner workings of their technology, they're also welcome to complain to me directly, and we'll make it right.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:24, Marco Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > The only thing I disagree with is taking the frustration offline. People > should be able to express themselves here. They should share their use cases > that they feel are being hampered, and the response should be posted here as > well so that everyone can benefit. > > :Marco > > > On Friday, February 3, 2012 1:28:54 PM UTC-8, Isaac Schlueter wrote: >> >> The Isolates feature was intended to make it possible to run >> child_process.fork() in a thread, rather than a full process. The >> justification was to make it cheaper to spin up new child node >> instances, as well as allowing for fast message-passing using shared >> memory in binary addons, while retaining the semantics of node's >> child_process implementation by keeping them in completely isolated v8 >> instances. >> >> It was a very informative experiment, but has ultimately turned out to >> cause too much instability in node's internal functionality to justify >> continuing with it at this time. It requires a lot of complexity to >> be added to libuv and node, and isn't likely to yield enough gains to >> be worth the investment. >> >> We're going to roll back the changes in master that were added to >> support Isolates, and instead focus on Domains and other things that >> promise to increase stability and make debugging easier. This change >> will land in 0.7.3. It's entirely possible that we may decide to use >> v8 isolates in some future version of node, but they will not be in >> 0.8. >> >> If you were eagerly looking forward to using this feature, and find >> yourself shocked or frustrated by this decision, please contact me >> directly. It's not our intention to leave anyone stuck, and I do >> understand that this feature was promised for some time. If this >> causes hardship for you, let's figure out another way to get your use >> cases handled. >> >> It's never easy to back-pedal, but doing experimental things means >> sometimes finding out that you were headed in the wrong direction. >> The sooner we make this change, the easier it will be. >> >> Thanks. > > -- > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > Posting guidelines: > https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
