Implement methods for Template, FunctionTemplate & ObjectTemplate

[georgyangelov]

A ton of callbacks here :) Not sure if we will need them all though.

[georgyangelov]

@cowboyd, do you have an idea of a reason why Template::SetNativeDataProperty callbacks would not be called when doing template.NewInstance.Get(@ctx, key)?

[cowboyd]

Awesome to see this! I'm travelling today, but will have a look at these tomorrow.

I know it seems like a lot of callbacks, but if I recall correctly, there are at least four that are necessary to implement complete "method_missing" behavior for Ruby objects.

I can't say off the top of my head why the SetNativeDataProperty would not be invoked when doing a NewInstance().Get(). It certainly seems like the docs suggest that it should. I can investigate further on this tomorrow, but it might be a good question for the v8-users list.

[ignisf]

I kind of liked having you in our time zone :)

[cowboyd]

I know it was nice, right? Welp. Next summer :)

[cowboyd]

Could probably use the Int equiv here.

[cowboyd]

Looking good! That is a lot of callbacks, but this really is the last piece in the puzzle before we can start putting it all together.

[cowboyd]

I actually agree with you about the readability aspect here, and I want to make sure that this codebase is as readable as possible. I wonder if there is some common ground here that preserves readability and also safety. Maybe something like:

PropertyCallbackData data(isolate, rb_data);
 t->SetAccessor(
        *Name(r_name),
        AccessorGetter(getter, data),
        AccessorSetter(setter, data),
        data,
        Enum<v8::AccessControl>(r_settings, v8::DEFAULT),
        Enum<v8::PropertyAttribute>(r_attribute, v8::None),
        AccessorSignature(r_signature)
      );

Hate to thrash on this, but this is one of the trickier bits of the codebase, and so it's important to get right. If you don't think it's worth it, then we'll go ahead and merge, but seeing it in action, it is quite "WTF" to see callback repeated 5 times.

[georgyangelov]

I completely agree we should get this right. I'm thinking something like this:

PropertyCallback callback(isolate, getter, setter, rb_data);
 t->SetAccessor(
        *Name(r_name),
        callback.getter(),
        callback.setter(),
        data,
        Enum<v8::AccessControl>(r_settings, v8::DEFAULT),
        Enum<v8::PropertyAttribute>(r_attribute, v8::None),
        AccessorSignature(r_signature)
      );

where getter and setter return a function pointer.

The example you gave wouldn't work since the data should already contain the Ruby proc objects so that we can pass it to the data parameter of SetAccessor.

[cowboyd]

Sounds good!

[georgyangelov]

Done, sorry for taking so long..

Do you want me to squash this?

[cowboyd]

No worries, and no need to squash unless you want to. I've been crazy busy at work, but hoping to merge this, this week.