►
From YouTube: Node.js N-API Team Meeting 2020-10-06
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
This
okey
pokey
so
and
api
seven,
let's
see
first
issue-
is
nap
i7.
We
had
that
tracking
thing.
A
Okay,
I
think
we've
discussed
that
and
where's
my
tracking.
A
A
So,
let's
see
an
api,
7
is
still
missing
from
10,
but
otherwise
it's
across
the
board.
So
then
I
guess
we're
just
waiting
for
for
a
summer
miner
release
of
10.
For
that
one.
A
Okay,
external
examples
I
still
have
not
had
a
chance
has
anyone
else
had
a
chance
to
review
these?
If
not,
then,
let's
see
what's
going
on,
okay
tracking
issue
for
modules,
we've
noticed
are
ported.
Okay
has
I
don't
know
if
nikola
usually
makes
very
cool
comments
here
with
very
cool
incoming
stuff,
but
not
of
late?
A
A
A
B
A
Gross
can't
complain
absolutely
very
cool
all
right.
So,
let's
see
here,
you
know
I'm
starting
to
think
that
at
this
many
downloads
a
week
we
are
sort
of
starting
to
experience.
Some
of
the
expansion
of
the
node.js
ecosystem
itself
right,
because
so
the
increase
in
growth
isn't
only
because
new
modules
are
being
ported,
but
because
the
existing
modules
are
being
downloaded
more
and
more
often
right,
interesting
anyway,.
B
A
A
A
A
B
No,
no!
It's
just.
I
wonder
if
there's
if
there
are
web
resources
that
let
us
track
the
overall
growth
of
the
adoption
of
node,
that
that's
something
I'm
I'll
take
a
look
at.
A
Well,
yeah
yeah,
that's
true!
I
mean
we
we
could.
We
could
ask
if,
if
anybody
has
just
like
download
statistics
and
how
public
those
can
be
made,
you
know
because,
like
people
download
note
from
the
tart
balls,
so
you
know
yeah
right.
If
we
could
see
a
trend
on
those,
it
would
be
cool
yeah.
But
anyway,
that's
that's
a
wider
discussion.
Well,
we
can.
We
can
raise
it.
I
guess
maybe.
B
A
Already
have
it
I'm
just
not
aware
of
it:
yeah,
okay!
So,
let's
see
blog
post
discuss
last
few
years
of
napi.
Oh
my
goodness,
if
only
I
had
had
time
for
this
okay,
we
got
the
doc
link.
Okay,
I'm
gonna
have
to
keep
this
on.
My
radar
has
anybody
else
had
a
chance
to
work
with
it.
I
I
know
I
know
nicola
mentioned
that
he
he
would
be
working
with
it.
B
A
A
A
A
Okay,
sure
yeah,
okay,
yeah,
so
yeah,
I
I
don't
know
what
is
expected
to
be
passed
in
info
like
all
the
the
stuff
coming
in
from
the
thread
right
is,
is
supposed
to
be
passed
in
there,
I'm
assuming
because
it
is
on
progress
yeah
all
right.
Yes,
please.
Thank
you
all
right.
So,
let's
see
other
issues.
A
Okay,
the
next
release
this
one
is
to
nicola,
but
I
think
we
can
check
for
some
okay,
all
right
so
so
the
thread
say:
function
yeah
that
one's
that
one's
okay
to
go
pretty
much
just
okay,
yeah
yeah
yeah,
that's
true!
What
michael
wrote
is
still
correct:
okay,
so
yeah,
let's
land
straight,
say,
function
ex.
It's
pretty
much
good
to
go
a
few,
a
few
white
space
things
I
noticed,
but
other
than
that,
it's
good.
A
A
A
Yes,
exactly
yeah,
okay!
Well,
this
seems
to
have
been
addressed.
Who
said,
give
the
plus
one?
Okay,
michael
right,
I
guess
it's
it's
waiting
for
for
a
comment.
Yeah
we've
had
we've
had
one
occasion
where,
where
somebody
really
really
really
really
needed
to
do
a
require
straight
from
native
and-
and
we
couldn't
accommodate
that-
I
remember-
but
if,
if
there
is
a
javascript
module
in
front
of
the
native
module,
then
then
the
javascript
module
can
communicate
back
the
the
needed
function
or
the
needed
module.
A
A
Okay,
okay,
I
think
okay,
yes,
that
seems
like
the
right
answer.
All
right
I
mean
we
can
just
keep
going
with
these.
It's
mostly
just
questions.
So
if
you,
if
you
are
aware
of
any
one
that
we
should
sort
of
pull
out,
then
we
can,
but
otherwise
I
don't
know,
let's,
let's
go
through
the
milestone
and
then,
if
we
have
time
left
we
can.
We
can
go
back
to
to
to
these
questions.
If
you
guys
are
okay
with
that,
because
we
have
quite
a
few.
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
we
have
a
few
issues:
okay,
oh
yeah.
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
this
is
going
to
happen,
because
I
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
if
this
is
somewhere
major
or
not.
A
Right,
like
we
have
a
bunch
of
function,
pointers
that
are
just
like
defined
as
function
pointers,
but
if
we
add,
if
we
add
type
names
and
we
change
the
signature
of
the
function
to
accept
the
type
name,
I
don't
think
it's
an
api
break,
but
that
you
know
we
might
need
to
discuss
that
if
it's
even
worth
it
because
then
we
can
just
close
the
issue
as
won't
fix.
C
C
If
the
since
we,
the
api,
an
image
can
be
used
on
objects
that
have
been
created
before
the
call
and
the
the
object
can
be
disabled,
so
mk
anything
and
it
doesn't
have
a
strong
reference
to
it.
So
when
the
resource
get
gathered
garbage
collected
and
they
got
a
async
make
callback
on
the
async
context,
then
what
what
a
npr
status
will
will
be
written
to
indicate.
A
C
C
C
C
A
Yes,
it's
a
breaking
change,
but
it
can
be
considered
a
bug
fix
right,
because
the
the
napi
behavior
differs
from
the
from
the
node
behavior
right
in
that
the
the
napi
is
in
context
is
wrong
because
it
doesn't
do
the
same
thing
as
the
no
daysing
context
right
so
so
so
I
mean
this
could
be
considered
like
a
bug,
in
which
case,
even
if
it's
a
breaking
change,
we
still
have
to
do
it
because
well
otherwise
it
does
unexpected
things.
Right,
like
like,
like
do
a
stale
reference.
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
A
A
B
A
Then,
at
least
we
know
that
that
the
context
is
gone
yeah,
but
on
the
other
hand,
how
useful
is
that
right?
Because
I
mean
you
you
want
yeah,
I
mean
you
want
the
context
to
be
explicitly
deleted,
because
you
cannot
know
when
it
is
no
longer
needed
right.
The
the
the
the
add-on
knows
what
the
what
the
life
cycle
of
the
context
is
right.
A
It
knows
when,
when
when
there
will
be
no
more
asynchronous
activity
in
that
context,
so
so
you
know
if,
if
you,
if
you
invalidate
it
you're
sort
of
you're
sort
of
you
know
pulling
out
the
carpet
from
under
the
add-on,
it's
like
you,
don't
have
a
context
anymore.
A
You
know
what
are
you
going
to
do
now?
You
know
like
you,
don't
want
to
you
don't
want
to.
You,
don't
want
the
add-on
to
have
to
handle
that
and
and
the
add-on.
I
don't
think
it
can
even
find
out
that
that
the
context
is
gone
because
the
the
nappy
async
context
is
just
just
sort
of
an
opaque
structure.
You
cannot
say
you
know,
nappy
async
context
is
valid
or
you
know
is
garbage
collected.
A
C
A
No,
no,
no,
let's!
Let's
just
talk
about
this
because
this
seems
like
it
seems
like
complicated
problem
all
right,
but
anyway
I
I
can
read
up
on
the
issue
and
and
and
maybe
comment
there,
because
I
I
do
think
it
sounds
like
a
bug
right,
especially
if
our
behavior
differs
from
node.
C
A
Wait
a
minute
wait,
a
minute
though,
so
let
me
let
me
check
the
okay.
C
But
it's
but
technically
you
have
to
do
a
nappy,
async,
destroy
on
the
async
context
and
which
exactly.
B
A
Because
think
when,
when
when,
when
this
happens,
right
like
you,
you
call
set
week
here
right,
let
me
let
me
open
this.
Let
me
open
this
so
so
the
set
week.
A
Right
so,
okay,
so
this
is
a.
This
is
a
leak
like.
If
you
don't
call
destroy
right,
then
then
this
is
a
leak
anyway,
because
because
okay
yeah
you're
you're
you're
resetting
this.
So
okay,
so
at
least
the
the
js
object
will
not
be
leaked,
but
this
is
still
alive
right,
and
so
this
will
be
leaked.
If
you
don't
call
destroy
so
you
have
to
call
destroy
right.
Otherwise,.
A
A
Yeah,
so
I
there
should
be
no
problem
with
with,
with
with
making
it
strong
like
okay,
how
do
what
do
we?
What
do
you
do
with
last
reference.
C
A
But
okay,
you
know,
I
don't
think
this
is
a
problem
right
because
because
you
know,
if
if
the
reference
is
lost,
yes,
then
you
return
that
being
valid
arc,
so
so
some
some
add-ons
handle
this
error
case
right
because
they
they
ran
into
this
problem
where,
where
all
of
a
sudden
it
returns
nappy
invalid
arg.
But
this
error
case
will
not
happen
anymore.
It
will
just
succeed
right
more
often
than
it
did
before
right.
So
there's
one
less
reason
to
throw
an
error.
If
this
is
a
strong
reference
right.
A
C
A
C
Strong,
so
if
we
can
get
a
consensus
on
this,
the
strong
reference
we
can
proceed
on,
the
pr
and
the
issue
raised
by
flana
can
be
addressed,
so
there
will
be
no
other.
I
can
I.
I
will
comment
on
the
appear
and
find
that
if
there
are
any
concerns
regarding
the
change
reference
towards
john.
A
Yeah
you
know
there
is.
There
is
one
other
advantage
here
since
since
garbage
collection
is
inherently
sort
of
unpredictable
right
and
you
have
to
assume
that
it's
unpredictable.
A
If
we,
if
we
make
this
a
strong
reference,
then
then
you
know
we
we
will
have
removed
some
unpredictability
from
a
lot
of
code
that
uses
it
right,
because
you
know
people
now
are
handling
the
case
where
all
of
a
sudden,
it's
invalid
for
no
apparent
reason
right.
You
start
getting
these
errors
right
and
you
don't
I
mean
you
may
not
even
know
about
garbage
collection
and
you're
like
why.
Why
is
this
all
of
a
sudden
invalid?
Well,
okay,
what
do
you
do
I'll
make
another
one?
Okay
or
something
right?
A
You
handle
it
in
some
way,
and
so
so
now
you
all
that
code
will
be
dead
right,
because
this
will
never
happen
anymore.
So
the
way
we
remove
this
code
add-on
maintainers
will
also
be
able
to
remove
their
code
and
if
they
don't
that's
fine,
that
code
just
will
never
run
again
right.
A
A
Okay,
that's
great
making
good
progress
here.
So,
let's
see
what
else
have
we
wait,
which
one
is
this?
No,
this
is
no
doubt
on
api.
Let's
have
a
look
at.
Where
did
I
put
those.
A
A
Yeah,
I
don't
know
yeah.
This
was
mentioned
a
while
back
like
a
year
ago.
It
doesn't,
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
such
great
demand
for
it.
So
we'll
just
keep
it
around.
If.
C
Sorry,
I
mean
we
don't
see
many
use
cases.
A
A
Okay.
Well,
this
one
is
even
older
and
still
not
no
great
traction
and
this
one
yeah.
I
don't
know
if
we'll
ever
do
this,
but
it's
good
to
keep
it
open.
This
is
for
like
making
workers
and
stuff
from
an
api
that'll
be
interesting,
but
I
guess
this
is
not
it's
not
that
desired.
A
Okay,
so
that's
pretty
much
the
issues
in
core.
Let's
see,
do
we
have
anything
else
on
the
milestone,
all
right.
Okay,
note
sas.
I
think
it's
pretty
much
status
quo,
but
let
me
double
check
just
to
be
sure,
because
it's
a
big
one.
A
A
A
A
Right,
I
think
that's
about
it
for
the
agenda,
so
we
can
either
we
can
either
quit
or
we
can
just
pour
over
more
issues.
I
don't
know,
I
think
we've
handled
the
most
important
one.
So
I
propose
we
we
adjourn
for
the
week
and
then
we
will
continue
next
week.
What
do
you
think?
A
All
right,
okay,
so
thank
you!
Everybody
for
joining
and
we'll
speak
again
next
week
have
a
good
weekend.
Bye.