doc: better document --shared build #14158

Activity

1. refack

   added

   buildIssues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.

   help wantedIssues that need assistance from volunteers or PRs that need help to proceed.Issues that need assistance from volunteers or PRs that need help to proceed.

   docIssues and PRs related to Node.js documentation.Issues and PRs related to Node.js documentation.

   on Jul 10, 2017
2. addaleax

   added

   testIssues and PRs related to Node.js core tests and test infrastructure.Issues and PRs related to Node.js core tests and test infrastructure.

   on Jul 10, 2017
3. addaleax commented on Jul 10, 2017

   

   addaleax

   on Jul 10, 2017

   Member

   More actions

   If I may make the suggestion, we should also test it in some way if possible.

   👍React with 👍3Reacted by Refael Ackermann, Richard Lau and Benjamin Gruenbaum
4. refack commented on Jul 10, 2017

   

   refack

   on Jul 10, 2017

   Last edited by refack

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   If I may make the suggestion, we should also test it in some way if possible.

   If we decide to support, maybe it should be deprecated?

   [edit]
   I'm just playing devil's advocate, it think it's an important meta-feature. But without CI testing it has rotted...
   @electron @nwjs @nodejs/electron-installer @nodejs/build
5. gibfahn commented on Jul 11, 2017

   

   gibfahn

   on Jul 11, 2017

   Member

   More actions

   cc/ @mhdawson, @a-roberts (and maybe @sam-github) who were looking at this.
6. mhdawson commented on Jul 13, 2017

   

   mhdawson

   on Jul 13, 2017

   Member

   More actions

   I've had it on our internal backlog to push this forward, we've just not gotten started on it yet. My starting goals are:

   1. define set of tests to validate shared library works
   2. add tests to ci, ideally in the regression runs
   3. look at how we can better package/delivery, ideally as part of the binaries we already ship. Challenge on this front is not increasing the package size so we may need to look at moving to the node binary being a launcher that uses the shared library, this is what Java does.
7. mhdawson commented on Jul 13, 2017

   

   mhdawson

   on Jul 13, 2017

   Member

   More actions

   And I'm firmly on the side that we need to improve not remove. It is used by electron and we also have internal products that need it.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Refael Ackermann
8. mhdawson commented on Jul 13, 2017

   

   mhdawson

   on Jul 13, 2017

   Member

   More actions

   The person(s) on our team who worked on this in the past have moved on to a different project. My next step is to schedule some handover with them but then it will still be a matter on finding time to move it forward.
9. refack commented on Jul 13, 2017

   

   refack

   on Jul 13, 2017

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   add tests to ci, ideally in the regression runs

   #13078 tried to get cctest to link against the shared lib. Could ideally become said launcher so we can run the JS suite against it.
10. refack commented on Jul 13, 2017

    

    refack

    on Jul 13, 2017

    ContributorAuthor

    More actions

    #13078 tried to get cctest to link against the shared lib. Could ideally become said launcher so we can run the JS suite against it.

    Alternatively create something like d8 that will both serve as a test harness and an embedding example.
11. mhdawson commented on Sep 6, 2017

    

    mhdawson

    on Sep 6, 2017

    Member

    More actions

    @gibfahn can you post the launcher code that we already have for testing the shared library ? I've not had time to get back to this and it would at least be something we can discuss here in terms of moving forward on the testing.
12. gibfahn

    self-assigned this

    on Sep 6, 2017
13. mhdawson commented on Sep 6, 2017

    

    mhdawson

    on Sep 6, 2017

    Member

    More actions

    Seein #15195 maybe we should add a job that simply compiles the shared library as a first step towards fully testing it.
14. 36 remaining items

    Load more
15. MylesBorins

    added 2 commits that reference this issue on Mar 21, 2018

    build: refine static and shared lib build

    ...

    b6ff57b

    build: refine static and shared lib build

    ...

    8427ec6
16. MylesBorins

    added 4 commits that reference this issue on Mar 28, 2018

    build: refine static and shared lib build

    ...

    ddcfffb

    build: refine static and shared lib build

    ...

    a3111ba

    build: refine static and shared lib build

    ...

    49d8c2e

    build: refine static and shared lib build

    ...

    658dd40
17. Trott commented on Feb 17, 2019

    

    Trott

    on Feb 17, 2019

    Member

    More actions

    What remains to be done here?
18. trivikr

    added

    Hacktoberfest

    on Oct 1, 2019
19. Trott

    removed

    Hacktoberfest

    on Nov 3, 2019
20. jasnell commented on Jun 26, 2020

    

    jasnell

    on Jun 26, 2020

    Member

    More actions

    This has not been updated in over a year and it's not clear what remaining actions there are. Closing but it can be reopened and I'm putting it on the Futures project board so it does not get lost.
21. mhdawson commented on Jul 2, 2020

    

    mhdawson

    on Jul 2, 2020

    Member

    More actions

    @jasnell I think you failed to close so I'll do that. I still think we need a better defined API/documentation but I've not been able to line up people to work on it so I'll close for now.
22. mhdawson

    closed this as completedon Jul 2, 2020
23. sjarmak

    added a commit that references this issue on Jul 27, 2026

    build: refine static and shared lib build

    ...

    f878f94