Mike Wilkerson•2y ago

Embedding, snapshotting, and 7-bit ascii requirement

What are the differences in how a code module is processed when using load_side_module() versus when building an extension and using .esm() and include_js_files!()? I have an embed scenario working as expected with a JavaScript module, but less efficiently than I'd like (I suppose). I'd like to make it more efficient using snapshotting, but I'm hitting roadblocks that I don't understand. (Details follow...)

9 Replies

Mike WilkersonOP•2y ago

My scenario works when I use the deno_runtime crate, the MainWorker API, and I use include_str!() to include the string contents of that module into the binary, create a ModuleCode from it, and pass that to load_side_module(). Something like this:

let main_module = Url::parse("http://localhost/main").unwrap();
let side_module = Url::parse("http://localhost/side").unwrap();
let permissions = PermissionsContainer::allow_all();

let mut worker = MainWorker::bootstrap_from_options(main_module.clone(), permissions, options);
let code = include_str!("js/my-bundle.js");
let side_module_code: ModuleCode = FastString::Static(code);
let side_module_id_fut = worker
    .js_runtime
    .load_side_module(&side_module, Some(side_module_code));
let side_module_id = futures::executor::block_on(side_module_id_fut).unwrap();
let _ = worker.js_runtime.mod_evaluate(side_module_id);
futures::executor::block_on(worker.js_runtime.run_event_loop(false)).unwrap();

let main_module = Url::parse("http://localhost/main").unwrap();
let side_module = Url::parse("http://localhost/side").unwrap();
let permissions = PermissionsContainer::allow_all();

let mut worker = MainWorker::bootstrap_from_options(main_module.clone(), permissions, options);
let code = include_str!("js/my-bundle.js");
let side_module_code: ModuleCode = FastString::Static(code);
let side_module_id_fut = worker
    .js_runtime
    .load_side_module(&side_module, Some(side_module_code));
let side_module_id = futures::executor::block_on(side_module_id_fut).unwrap();
let _ = worker.js_runtime.mod_evaluate(side_module_id);
futures::executor::block_on(worker.js_runtime.run_event_loop(false)).unwrap();

After that completes, the runtime is in a state where I can run scripts that use that side module. However, what I think is happening here is that every time this embed code runs, it's having to create a new module, re-parse the JavaScript, and re-execute the module in order to put the runtime into a state where the module is available for use by some "main module", or some ad-hoc code that I may later run with execute_script(). (Not to mention that the binary will have to include the JavaScript source code a string, making for a larger binary.) So what it seems like I should be doing is leveraging the snapshotting feature to do the equivalent of this side module loading work in a build.rs, take a snapshot, and then load that snapshot in the main.rs (or lib.rs) of my crate.

Mike WilkersonOP•2y ago

It seems like the recent video live stream addresses exactly my concern, except that it doesn't address the roadblock I'm hitting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlJrMGm-XeA When I attempt to use the snapshotting APIs described in the video, I run into other problems. The method shown there uses an extension, and loads the code using a deno_core::ExtensionBuilder, .esm(), and include_js_files!(). When I load the exact same JavaScript module in an extension like that, I get an error like "Extension code must be 7-bit ASCII...". So there is evidently some difference in how this JavaScript module is being loaded and processed into these two loading scenarios. The higher-level approach, loading as a "side module" in the JsRuntime that is part of the MainWorker provided by the deno_runtime crate works as expected, but is less efficient than it might be if I were leveraging snapshotting. The lower-level approach, using an extension with deno_core does not work because this 7-bit ascii requirement is violated. What am I missing?

Deno

YouTube

Deno Sessions ep 3: 1.32 and snapshotting in custom JS runtime

Andy and Leo go over recent Deno updates and talk about how to use snapshotting. 00:00 Intro 02:26 Deno 1.32 08:18 What is snapshotting? 13:07 Implementing snapshotting 15:55 Dissecting CreateSnapshotOptions 23:33 Writing build.rs to create snapshot 29:13 Loading snapshot in main.rs 35:11 Q&A 45:00 Answering questions from GitHub Issue on Sna...

bartlomieju•2y ago

It's a constraint we put in place to ensure performance - ASCII strings are waaaay cheaper for V8 to store in a snapshot than UTF-8 - if you need to store that module in the snapshot just replace UTF-8 characters in the code with escape codes Like here:

bartlomieju•2y ago

https://github.com/denoland/deno/blob/246569f6d45852aa42d6f7fe6221fe4d9fa69e3c/ext/console/01_console.js#L2300-L2314

GitHub

deno/01_console.js at 246569f6d45852aa42d6f7fe6221fe4d9fa69e3c · de...

A modern runtime for JavaScript and TypeScript. Contribute to denoland/deno development by creating an account on GitHub.

Mike WilkersonOP•2y ago

Ok, that makes sense about why you'd do that optimization, and the possible escape code workaround. I still wonder why I only hit this ASCII requirement when trying to load it as an extension. If I recall correctly, I was having this same problem with the ASCII requirement when I was just loading the module in an extension, even without creating a snapshot. Is the higher-level approach (via load_side_module()) replacing the UTF-8 characters automatically for me? Or is it some how loading the module in a way that does not have an ASCII requirement?

bartlomieju•2y ago

I still wonder why I only hit this ASCII requirement when trying to load it as an extension. If I recall correctly, I was having this same problem with the ASCII requirement when I was just loading the module in an extension, even without creating a snapshot.

Because extensions are mostly meant for our internal usage - so we imposed these limitations. When loading code using load_side_module() or load_main_module() we are loading user code and there's no guarantee that it will be ASCII)

Or is it some how loading the module in a way that does not have an ASCII requirement?

Correct, when executing these modules there's no requirement for ASCII because they are not snapshotted and ES module specification allows UTF-8. Again we imposed ASCII limitation for extension! because they are usually snapshotted and we wanted to make it as cheap as possible to snapshot

Mike WilkersonOP•2y ago

Ok, thanks. My conclusion from this, then, is that if I want to use any valid ES module, I should not load it via extension!. Furthermore, I should not expect to be able to snapshot any valid ES module either. ...which circles back to your initial suggestion: replace any UTF-8 characters with escape codes, if I want to load such a module in an extension, in order to create a snapshot.

bartlomieju•2y ago

That's a valid conclusion for the time being - once Matt is back from OOO we can maybe look into making it possible, but for know I would only use it for the code you fully control. You should be able to revert to using ExtensionBuilder though - IIRC there should be an option there to just load any ES module, not just ASCII. Not sure though Thinking about it know - we should probably make this configurable somehow for the extension! macro 🤔 Can you circle back next week - I'll discuss with Matt; maybe we can make it work

Mike WilkersonOP•2y ago

@.bartlomieju sure, thanks. For what it's worth, I can control all of this code. In fact, the module I'm importing is already something that was produced by a custom Rollup configuration. I'll attempt to just replace utf-8 characters with escape codes on that bundle.