esm: avoid accessing lazy getters for urls#47542
Merged
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Collaborator
nodejs-github-bot commented Apr 13, 2023
Review requested:
|
nodejs-github-bot added esm 
anonrigforce-pushed the esm-improve-protocol branch from bb4b123 to 8661421Compare
aduh95 approved these changes Apr 13, 2023
anonrig added author ready 
github-actionsbot removed the request-ci Collaborator
nodejs-github-bot commented Apr 13, 2023
Member
lemire commented Apr 13, 2023
And I guess that we don’t expose the protocole type as an integer to JavaScript? If we did, we could avoid string comparisons. |
MemberAuthor
anonrig commented Apr 13, 2023
That's a really good argument @lemire. I'll look for some alternatives after this pull request, to improve it even more. |
Member
lemire commented Apr 13, 2023
I would expect that if you have several instances of the protocol string in JavaScript, that would be a performance penalty irrespective of the backend. Having just one reference is better. |
lemire approved these changes Apr 13, 2023
ljharb approved these changes Apr 13, 2023
Qard approved these changes Apr 13, 2023
Collaborator
nodejs-github-bot commented Apr 13, 2023
JakobJingleheimer approved these changes Apr 13, 2023
lpinca approved these changes Apr 13, 2023
Collaborator
nodejs-github-bot commented Apr 13, 2023
anonrig added the commit-queue 33 tasks
nodejs-github-bot removed the commit-queue Collaborator
nodejs-github-bot commented Apr 15, 2023
Landed in 93e550a |
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 2, 2023
PR-URL: #47542 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Jacob Smith <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
danielleadams pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2023
PR-URL: #47542 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Jacob Smith <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
MoLow pushed a commit to MoLow/node that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2023
PR-URL: nodejs#47542 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Jacob Smith <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
8 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request avoids multiple calls to the
protocolgetter of the URL. Previor to Ada version 2,url.protocolwas always returned an already allocated string, but right now, it slices a new string for each call. Storing it in a variable and access it, would make some improvement in terms of performance.cc @nodejs/url