lib: add support for JSTransferable as a mixin

[jasnell]

@addaleax ... Very interested in what you think on this... the use case is that I want to define internal classes that are both transferable and extend NodeEventTarget but without forcing all NodeEventTarget instances to be cloneable or incur the cost of extending JSTransferable. Because we can't use multiple inheritance this uses JSTransferable as a kind of mixin.

This is not a public facing API. It is inteded for internal use only for now.

---

Adds a new makeTransferable() utility that can construct a
JSTransferable object that does not directly extend the
JSTransferable JavaScript class.

Because JavaScript does not support multiple inheritance, it is
not possible (without help) to implement a class that extends
both JSTransferable and, for instance, EventTarget without
incurring a significant additional complexity and performance
cost by making all EventTarget instances extend JSTransferable...

That is, we don't want:

class EventTarget extends JSTransferable { ... }

The makeTransferable() allows us to create objects that are
backed internally by JSTransferable without having to actually
extend it by leveraging the magic of Reflect.construct().

const {
  JSTransferable,
  kClone,
  kDeserialize,
  makeTransferable,
} = require('internal/worker/js_transferable');

class E {
  constructor(b) {
    this.b = b;
  }
}

class F extends E {
  constructor(b) {
    super(b);
    return makeTransferable(this);
  }

  [kClone]() { /** ... **/ }
  [kDeserialize]() { /** ... **/ }
}

const f = new F();

f instanceof F;  // true
f instanceof E;  // true
f instanceof JSTransferable;  // false

const mc = new MessageChannel();
mc.port1.onmessage = ({ data }) => {
  data instanceof F;  // true
  data instanceof E;  // true
  data instanceof JSTransferable;  // false
};
mc.port2.postMessage(f);  // works!

The additional internal/test/transfer.js file is required for the
test because successfully deserializing transferable classes requires
that they be located in lib/internal for now.

Signed-off-by: James M Snell jasnell@gmail.com

[addaleax]

@jasnell I think this is fine to do, yes 👍

[devsnek]

maybe i'm misunderstanding what kConstructor does but would it be possible to instead of doing the following:

class X {
  constructor() {
    this.a = 1;
  }
  [kConstructor]() { return makeTransferable(X) }
}

do this?

class X {
  constructor() {
    this.a = 1;
    return makeTransferable(this);
  }
}

[jasnell]

maybe i'm misunderstanding what kConstructor does but would it be possible to instead of doing the following:

Yep, absolutely could. I wasn't yet sure if we'd always want X to always be transferable but I've been going through a range of cases and using the simpler option makes sense :-)

[jasnell]

@devsnek ... updated to use the simpler constructor form! This should be ready for review.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/37718/ 💚

[jasnell]

Landed in bbe24e2

[targos]

I'm removing the semver-minor label as:

This is not a public facing API. It is inteded for internal use only for now.