f5io / bonobo-js Goto Github PK

It would be nice if the run method accepted a callback or returned a promise so that associating calls and emitted events could be abstracted away. This was easy enough to do in a wrapper, but it would be a nice feature of the library itself. It there and I'm missing it? And if not, would you accept a pull request around that?

Please add working examples

It seems that Bonobo expects to be loaded through a <script> tag, so that it can import itself to worker scripts. But this is not documented. It's also unfortunate, because I concatenate all my .js files into one. And even if I make an exception for Bonobo, the main script would have to be in the server's root to have the bonobo-path resolve properly.

If I understand Bonobo's principles correctly, you should be able to do away with this restriction. Could you put Bonobo's code inside a function, and then use .hoist to get it into the workers?

At the very least, it would be useful if I could manually specify the path where the lib could be found.

Line 92 contains the following statement:

    _.loc = d.location.href.substr(0, d.location.href.lastIndexOf('/'));

This assumes the last '/' symbol represents the folder name. This is an incorrect assumption. I worked around this problem with the following code:

    _.loc = d.location.href.split('#')[0].split('?')[0];
    _.loc = _.loc.substr(0, _.loc.lastIndexOf('/'));

Not the most elegant, but gets the job done. If you can come up with a better solution, more power to ya!

I've tried to send JSON-like objects from a worker thread to the main thread using Bonobo. This still seems to take up to 10 seconds for large arrays. I profiled my app, and nearly all of this time is used by Bonobo function _self.messageHandler.

Question 1: The Bonobo docs claim that Bonobo intelligently uses transferable objects to make the transfer more efficient. From what I've been able to figure out, however, objects are translated to ArrayBuffers, which are then transferred, when are then translated back to their original form. Is that correct?

Question 2: From what I understand of web-workers, there is native support for copying JSON objects from thread to thread, using structured clone. Is this 'transferable-object-inbetween' approach really more efficient, given that it requires two translations, one of them in the main thread?

Question 3: What sort of data does Bonobo accept to actually get the (near) zero transfer time promised by transferable objects? If I send a raw ArrayBuffer, will it send it directly, or still try to copy? What about an object that contains raw ArrayBuffers?