AsyncWorker: introduce Destroy() method#488
Closed
gabrielschulhof wants to merge 1 commit intonodejs:masterfrom
Closed
AsyncWorker: introduce Destroy() method#488gabrielschulhof wants to merge 1 commit intonodejs:masterfrom
gabrielschulhof wants to merge 1 commit intonodejs:masterfrom
Conversation
`AsyncWorker` contained the assumption that instances of its subclasses were allocated using `new`, because it unconditionally destroyed instances using `delete`. This change replaces the call to `delete` with a call to a protected instance method `Destroy()`, which can be overridden by subclasses. This ensures that users can employ their own allocators when creating `AsyncWorker` subclass instances because they can override the `Destroy()` method to use their deallocator of choice. Re: nodejs#231 (comment)
Contributor
Author
gabrielschulhof
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2019
`AsyncWorker` contained the assumption that instances of its subclasses were allocated using `new`, because it unconditionally destroyed instances using `delete`. This change replaces the call to `delete` with a call to a protected instance method `Destroy()`, which can be overridden by subclasses. This ensures that users can employ their own allocators when creating `AsyncWorker` subclass instances because they can override the `Destroy()` method to use their deallocator of choice. Re: #231 (comment) PR-URL: #488 Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Contributor
Author
|
Landed in 3b6b9eb. |
kevindavies8
added a commit
to kevindavies8/node-addon-api-Develop
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2022
`AsyncWorker` contained the assumption that instances of its subclasses were allocated using `new`, because it unconditionally destroyed instances using `delete`. This change replaces the call to `delete` with a call to a protected instance method `Destroy()`, which can be overridden by subclasses. This ensures that users can employ their own allocators when creating `AsyncWorker` subclass instances because they can override the `Destroy()` method to use their deallocator of choice. Re: nodejs/node-addon-api#231 (comment) PR-URL: nodejs/node-addon-api#488 Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Marlyfleitas
added a commit
to Marlyfleitas/node-api-addon-Development
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 26, 2022
`AsyncWorker` contained the assumption that instances of its subclasses were allocated using `new`, because it unconditionally destroyed instances using `delete`. This change replaces the call to `delete` with a call to a protected instance method `Destroy()`, which can be overridden by subclasses. This ensures that users can employ their own allocators when creating `AsyncWorker` subclass instances because they can override the `Destroy()` method to use their deallocator of choice. Re: nodejs/node-addon-api#231 (comment) PR-URL: nodejs/node-addon-api#488 Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
wroy7860
added a commit
to wroy7860/addon-api-benchmark-node
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 19, 2022
`AsyncWorker` contained the assumption that instances of its subclasses were allocated using `new`, because it unconditionally destroyed instances using `delete`. This change replaces the call to `delete` with a call to a protected instance method `Destroy()`, which can be overridden by subclasses. This ensures that users can employ their own allocators when creating `AsyncWorker` subclass instances because they can override the `Destroy()` method to use their deallocator of choice. Re: nodejs/node-addon-api#231 (comment) PR-URL: nodejs/node-addon-api#488 Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
johnfrench3
pushed a commit
to johnfrench3/node-addon-api-git
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2023
`AsyncWorker` contained the assumption that instances of its subclasses were allocated using `new`, because it unconditionally destroyed instances using `delete`. This change replaces the call to `delete` with a call to a protected instance method `Destroy()`, which can be overridden by subclasses. This ensures that users can employ their own allocators when creating `AsyncWorker` subclass instances because they can override the `Destroy()` method to use their deallocator of choice. Re: nodejs/node-addon-api#231 (comment) PR-URL: nodejs/node-addon-api#488 Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
AsyncWorkercontained the assumption that instances of its subclasseswere allocated using
new, because it unconditionally destroyedinstances using
delete.This change replaces the call to
deletewith a call to a protectedinstance method
Destroy(), which can be overridden by subclasses.This ensures that users can employ their own allocators when
creating
AsyncWorkersubclass instances because they can overridethe
Destroy()method to use their deallocator of choice.Re: #231 (comment)