Is it somehow inherently more dangerous or disaster-prone than calling into Lua code that calls back into the C TS API?
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:59 AM Jason Giedymin <jason.giedy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds like a disaster. > > -Jason > > > On May 17, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Having a plugin that would call into Java and then back into C sounds > like a really bad idea. > > > > -Bryan > > > > > >> On May 17, 2019, at 8:59 AM, Walt Karas <wka...@verizonmedia.com.INVALID> > wrote: > >> > >> http://jonisalonen.com/2012/calling-c-from-java-is-easy/ > >> > >> I don't know if there is a way to call Java from C or C++, which you > would > >> also need to have a Java plugin. If no one is currently doing anything > >> like this we probably shouldn't worry about it. > >> > >>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:54 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On May 17, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Walt Karas <wka...@verizonmedia.com > .INVALID> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> But are there people who write plugins in other languages (like Java > for > >>>> example) that can call C functions, but not C++ functions? If so, > >>> wouldn't > >>>> this break their plugins? > >>> > >>> > >>> Never heard of that. How would someone do that ? You can write Java > such > >>> that the C-callbacks / continuations from ATS somehow gets called into > the > >>> appropriate Java API? dlopen() would need to find all these entry > points in > >>> the .so. > >>> > >>> — leif > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 8:41 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> If we change this, such that all plugins must be compiled with C++ > >>>>> compilers, we have the liberty of using C++’ism in the public > >>> interfaces, > >>>>> such as ts/ts.h and ts/remap.h. This has benefits, such as being > able to > >>>>> expose internal APIs of ATS without going through complex glue > >>> interfaces > >>>>> and opaque pointers. > >>>>> > >>>>> The disadvantage is that keeping ABI compatibility is a fair amount > more > >>>>> tricky. However, I don’t feel this is a significant issue, as long > as we > >>>>> don’t break it within minor / patch releases. It does make things > >>> trickier > >>>>> here too though, so we have to be open to the possibility of > accidental > >>>>> breakage of ABI compatibility. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the advantages outweighs the disadvantages. The tasks for > this > >>> is > >>>>> tracked on > >>>>> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/issues/5360 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> > >>>>> — leif > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > >
