-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
tracing module #570
Comments
I think nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#8110 is the original PR that removed it? |
I have read most of the conversation in nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#8110 and from what I can make out:
However there don't appear to be an external module and |
Outdated comment, maybe. It's called async_wrap now:
|
thanks everyone |
@bnoordhuis Thanks. Any information about the external module. I can only see that @tjfontaine have reserved the name on npm. |
The code for that lives at http://github.com/joyent/node-tracing now, though it hasn't been getting a lot of attention lately. |
probably needs to be sporked into iojs :) |
@bnoordhuis Thanks for clarifying. Yes, it's under The idea was for add-on developers to use and experiment with new APIs so we could come to a conclusion of what the best API would be. Don't want another issue with creating a fundamentally broken API. |
makes sense to me, the tracing API was not ideal. In my experiments I found combining it with Error.prepareStackTrace to get custom stacks with additional info and then creating a trace on every async op was interesting. The context object being passed in the async listeners isn't a friendly API |
So.. this has been removed
I had a play with it in v0.11 and thought it was promising,
the API was not good, and it wasn't immediately clear that it's only for tracing async calls,
but I thought the concept was interesting, you could extend it for javascript level
dtrace tooling, or possibly even use it to feed into kernel level tracing tools
So I've got two questions
how come it was removed? (performance? ... philosophy? ... convenience? )
will it (or some form of the same idea) make it back into core?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: