Subj : Re: [spidermonkey] JS_CallFunction in Finalize
To   : netscape.public.mozilla.jseng
From : franck
Date : Tue Aug 30 2005 11:42 am

Brendan Eich wrote:
> franck wrote:
> 
>>
>> Replacing .Proc('MessageBoxA') with .MessageBoxA, you are talking 
>> about defining getProperty of the JSClass, right ?
>> But if the dll has a symbol named 'Closed', I cannot make the 
>> difference between the dll's symbol and the Close method of my Module 
>> class.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, right -- sorry, I misunderstood you.  That's one way to avoid that 
> conflict, but it might be better for the common case to do it the other 
> way 'round.  Put the methods, if they are rarely called, in some 
> namespace object (or even an E4X namespace).
> 
> I can give advice on this if you want to pursue it.

Yes, I am interested to have some advice about this.

> 
> 
>> My wish is to make the work as simple as possible for these end-users, 
>> for exemple, the only thing they have to do to use libxml2.dll is :
>>
>> -- start --
>> Load( 'libxml2.js' );
>> InitLibxml2();
>> ...
>> < here they can start to use the library >
>> -- end --
>>
>> It is up to the advanced user to write the libxml2.js file ( using my 
>> library API )
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but if a user writes a bad onClose method, which stores a reference 
> to the object being finalized anywhere live, watch out!  There are no 
> safeguards in the JS engine to prevent very bad things from ensuing.

In any way, when I try to use functions like JS_GetProperty, ... the engine seems to failed to create a js_NewString with the property's name, 
JS_ASSERT(!rt->gcRunning) failed in jsgc.c ( unable to create a NewGCThing while GC is running I suppose ).
Is there any other way or workaround to allow my 'advanced users' to do this ? ( I suppose that such users are aware about these "very bad things" ).


> 
> /be

.