Stream: rfc-notifications

Topic: rfcs / Issue #9 RFC: shared host functions.

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 16 2021 at 19:11):

peterhuene commented on Issue #9:

Motion to finalize with a disposition to merge

I'm proposing that we merge this RFC.

Feedback has been addressed from the draft RFC and an implementation in Wasmtime is ready for review.

Stakeholders sign-off

Tagging all employees of BA-affiliated companies who have committed to the Wasmtime repo in the last three months plus anyone who has given feedback on this PR as a stakeholder.

Fastly

IBM

Intel

Mozilla

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 16 2021 at 19:12):

sunfishcode edited a comment on Issue #9:

Motion to finalize with a disposition to merge

I'm proposing that we merge this RFC.

Feedback has been addressed from the draft RFC and an implementation in Wasmtime is ready for review.

Stakeholders sign-off

Tagging all employees of BA-affiliated companies who have committed to the Wasmtime repo in the last three months plus anyone who has given feedback on this PR as a stakeholder.

Fastly

IBM

Intel

Mozilla

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 16 2021 at 19:13):

alexcrichton edited a comment on Issue #9:

Motion to finalize with a disposition to merge

I'm proposing that we merge this RFC.

Feedback has been addressed from the draft RFC and an implementation in Wasmtime is ready for review.

Stakeholders sign-off

Tagging all employees of BA-affiliated companies who have committed to the Wasmtime repo in the last three months plus anyone who has given feedback on this PR as a stakeholder.

Fastly

IBM

Intel

Mozilla

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 16 2021 at 19:18):

peterhuene edited a comment on Issue #9:

Motion to finalize with a disposition to merge

I'm proposing that we merge this RFC.

Feedback has been addressed from the draft RFC and an implementation in Wasmtime is ready for review.

Stakeholders sign-off

Tagging all employees of BA-affiliated companies who have committed to the Wasmtime repo in the last three months plus anyone who has given feedback on this PR as a stakeholder.

Fastly

IBM

Intel

Mozilla

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 16 2021 at 21:31):

peterhuene edited a comment on Issue #9:

Motion to finalize with a disposition to merge

I'm proposing that we merge this RFC.

Feedback has been addressed from the draft RFC and an implementation in Wasmtime is ready for review.

Stakeholders sign-off

Tagging all employees of BA-affiliated companies who have committed to the Wasmtime repo in the last three months plus anyone who has given feedback on this PR as a stakeholder.

Fastly

IBM

Intel

Mozilla

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 16 2021 at 21:57):

fitzgen edited a comment on Issue #9:

Motion to finalize with a disposition to merge

I'm proposing that we merge this RFC.

Feedback has been addressed from the draft RFC and an implementation in Wasmtime is ready for review.

Stakeholders sign-off

Tagging all employees of BA-affiliated companies who have committed to the Wasmtime repo in the last three months plus anyone who has given feedback on this PR as a stakeholder.

Fastly

IBM

Intel

Mozilla

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 17 2021 at 21:46):

benaubin commented on Issue #9:

Preface: I'm new to the wasmtime codebase (but would love to start contributing), and I might be completely offbase with this.

Would it be possible to make this the "naïve import type bound" to make Store Send that @alexcrichton was discussing in https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/793?

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 17 2021 at 21:47):

benaubin edited a comment on Issue #9:

Preface: I'm new to the wasmtime codebase (but would love to get up to speed and start contributing in the future), and I might be completely offbase with this.

Would it be possible to make this the "naïve import type bound" to make Store Send that @alexcrichton was discussing in https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/793?

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 17 2021 at 21:48):

benaubin edited a comment on Issue #9:

Preface: I'm new to the wasmtime codebase (but would love to get up to speed and start contributing in the future), and I might be completely offbase with this.

Would it be possible to make this the "import object bound" that makes Store impl Send, as @alexcrichton was discussing in https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/793?

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 17 2021 at 21:48):

benaubin edited a comment on Issue #9:

Preface: I'm new to the wasmtime codebase (but would love to get up to speed and start contributing in the future), and I might be completely offbase with this.

Would it be possible to somehow turn this into the "import object bound" that makes Store impl Send, as @alexcrichton was discussing in https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/793?

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 17 2021 at 22:37):

peterhuene commented on Issue #9:

The problem this RFC tries to address isn't really related to Instance (or Store) not being Send as even if Instance were Send, short-lived instances (implying a short-lived Store as instances are not deallocated until the Store owning them drops) would need to have host functions redefined when a new Store is created.

This RFC calls for defining host functions in a way that is not tied to a Store and therefore can be used from any Store without having to redefine them.

As Module is Send+Sync, this change would allow a "main" thread to define all of the host functions, load the module, and then when a service request comes in send the module to another thread that creates a new Store and instantiates the module without having to define the host functions while servicing the request itself.

Does that explanation make sense?

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 17 2021 at 22:38):

peterhuene edited a comment on Issue #9:

The problem this RFC tries to address isn't really related to Instance (or Store) being !Send as even if Instance were Send, short-lived instances (implying a short-lived Store as instances are not deallocated until the Store owning them drops) would need to have host functions redefined when a new Store is created.

This RFC calls for defining host functions in a way that is not tied to a Store and therefore can be used from any Store without having to redefine them.

As Module is Send+Sync, this change would allow a "main" thread to define all of the host functions, load the module, and then when a service request comes in send the module to another thread that creates a new Store and instantiates the module without having to define the host functions while servicing the request itself.

Does that explanation make sense?

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 18 2021 at 00:45):

benaubin commented on Issue #9:

That makes a lot of sense, thank you! I see how this solves much of the same use case.

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Feb 26 2021 at 18:57):

peterhuene commented on Issue #9:

Entering Final Call Period

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/rfcs/blob/main/accepted/rfc-process.md#making-a-decision-merge-or-close

Once any stakeholder from a different group has signed off, the RFC will move into a 10 calendar day final comment period (FCP), long enough to ensure that other stakeholders have at least a full business week to respond.

The FCP will end on Mon Mar 9.

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Mar 09 2021 at 03:41):

peterhuene edited a comment on Issue #9:

Entering Final Call Period

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/rfcs/blob/main/accepted/rfc-process.md#making-a-decision-merge-or-close

Once any stakeholder from a different group has signed off, the RFC will move into a 10 calendar day final comment period (FCP), long enough to ensure that other stakeholders have at least a full business week to respond.

The FCP will end on Tue Mar 9.

view this post on Zulip RFC notifications bot (Mar 09 2021 at 20:41):

peterhuene commented on Issue #9:

The FCP has elapsed without any objections being raised; as a result I'm going to merge this. Thanks everyone!

Last updated: Oct 23 2024 at 20:03 UTC