There are indeed discussions in nodejs to became more vm agnostic. This was also hinted at in https://github.com/mozilla/spidernode/issues/3
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Steve Fink <sf...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 04/14/2016 06:21 AM, Philip Chee wrote: >> >> On 12/04/2016 19:27, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> >>> My understanding is that >>> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As we >>> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see >>> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ), it's >> >> AFAICT Spidernode is an ex-parrot. However the JXCore fork of Node.js >> can optionally use SpiderMonkey as their JavaScript engine. I wonder if >> the JXCore people would be willing to upstream their changes back to >> Mozilla? > > > There's a new spidernode now -- <https://github.com/mozilla/spidernode>. But > it's much less complete than JXCore. Sadly, JXCore has itself been > discontinued, but the source was released under an MIT-style license at > <https://github.com/jxcore/jxcore>. > > Neither makes any changes to SpiderMonkey afaik; the changes that could be > upstreamed are to the Node source. > > I'm not that familiar with Node or either of these SpiderMonkey shim layers, > but I have heard word that some of the changes may be fairly invasive. The > best route probably depends on the changes required, and the willingness of > the Node maintainers to accept these things. It's kind of feeling to me like > it's about time for Node to abstract away from v8 a bit so that it can more > easily run under either SpiderMonkey or ChakraCore (they've also done a Node > port, some parts of which are the basis for the new spidernode.) > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
