Thoughts on a synchronous rcl.init() function #757
wayneparrott
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 1 comment
-
I think using
My concern is that whether this kind of change will influence the user experience/real-time performance, e.g. When publishing a topic and the JS messages are not there, the time consumption of generating messages may be not acceptable during run time. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Presently
rcl.init()
(see index.js) is an asynchronous function due to it's file system access to detect format changes in generated message files. I would like to open a discussion around the idea of adding a synchronous version ofinit()
, e.g.,rcl.initSync()
,rcl.basicInit()
orrcl.fastInit()
, which either does not perform file system access or includes the ability to opt out of automatic message version check and regeneration.A use-case is the rate.js implementation that creates a private rcl environment using it's own context. Because the implementation has to call
rcl.init(privateContext)
theNode.createRate()
method is unnecessarily async. I say unnecessarily async because rate.js has no dependencies on generated msg files yet it inherits that overhead fromrcl.init()
.Thoughts?
One impl may look like this:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions