Hi!
We've used linked bindings to compile single statically linked node binary for deployment, so i've a question about difference in the initialization process for built-in bindings, linked bindings and native extensions as dynamic libraries.
As far as i can see, linked binding initialization works more like built-in native modules init: module can be called using process._linkedBinding() and initialization function receive v8::String as second argument instead of v8::Object instance of Module.
My question is: is it good idea to hack linked binding initialization to make to behave more like require + DLOpen (create instance of Module and pass it to initialization function) or it's reserved for some internal needs? Maybe where is another, less "private" way to have native extensions as compiled-in modules?
Hi!
We've used linked bindings to compile single statically linked node binary for deployment, so i've a question about difference in the initialization process for built-in bindings, linked bindings and native extensions as dynamic libraries.
As far as i can see, linked binding initialization works more like built-in native modules init: module can be called using
process._linkedBinding()and initialization function receivev8::Stringas second argument instead ofv8::Objectinstance ofModule.My question is: is it good idea to hack linked binding initialization to make to behave more like
require + DLOpen(create instance ofModuleand pass it to initialization function) or it's reserved for some internal needs? Maybe where is another, less "private" way to have native extensions as compiled-in modules?