Reimplement escript archives #9386
Conversation
lucioleKi
added
team:VM
CT Test Results 8 files 303 suites 3h 5m 21s ⏱️ For more details on these failures, see this check. Results for commit 96497af. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. To speed up review, make sure that you have read Contributing to Erlang/OTP and that all checks pass. See the TESTING and DEVELOPMENT HowTo guides for details about how to run test locally. Artifacts// Erlang/OTP Github Action Bot |
lucioleKi
removed
the
testing
lib/kernel/src/code_server.erl
Outdated
| lookup_name(Name, Db) -> | ||
| case ets:lookup(Db, Name) of | ||
| [{Name, Dir, Base, SubDirs}] -> {ok, Dir, Base, SubDirs}; | ||
| [{Name, Dir}] -> {ok, Dir}; | ||
| _ -> false | ||
| end. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could be a lookup_element now for slightly more efficiency
| end || FileOrBin <- Files]. | ||
|
|
||
| beam_bundle(Beams, OtherFiles) -> | ||
| Packed = term_to_binary(Beams, [{compressed,9}]), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aren't beam files already compressed? If so, I'd imagine this extra compression will mostly just spend CPU time without reducing the size significantly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, not necessarily, they can be compressed but they're not always so.
lib/stdlib/src/escript.erl
Outdated
| AppFiles = [{list_to_atom(filename:basename(filename:rootname(Name))), Bin} || | ||
| {Name, Bin} <:- UnpackedFiles, | ||
| filename:extension(Name) =:= ".app"], | ||
| persistent_term:put(?MODULE, AppFiles), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the key escript used globally might be too collision-prone. How about at least '$escript?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, how about escript_app_files to make the corresponding persistent_term:get/1 more readable?
|
This is beautiful! 😍 Although not related to this issue, but for completeness, I have one last to do in relation to the |
The support for zip archives for packaging Erlang applications is an experimental features, and as such can be subject to incompatible changes. The support for archives in the code server and the `erl_prim_loader` module complicates the implementation and make code loading slower even when no archives are used. Furthermore, the existence of the feature prevents or vatstly complicates further optimization of code loading. Therefore, this commit removes the support for code archives from the code server, and from the `code` and `erl_prim_loader` modules. Having multiple BEAM files and other files in an `escript` is still supported, but in an incompatible way for escripts created by Erlang/OTP 28. We decided to do it like this to keep `escript:create/2` and `escript:extract/2` as simple as possible, and make it possible to phase out the old archive format as soon as possible. However, escripts created by Erlang/OTP 27 and earlier will run in Erlang/OTP 28, provided that they don't rely on archive features in the code server or `erl_prim_loader`. Co-authored-by: Björn Gustavsson <bjorn@erlang.org>
lucioleKi
force-pushed
the
isabell/stdlib/new-escript-archives/OTP-19470
branch
from
119b997 to
96497af
Compare
| > the code server has been removed. Archives can be still be used for | ||
| > escripts, but the internal implementation of archives for escripts | ||
| > has changed as well a how to create an escript containing multiple | ||
| > file. |
| > `escript` scripts that use archive files should use | ||
| > In Erlang/OTP 28, the archive support in `m:erl_prim_loader` and the | ||
| > the code server has been removed. Archives can be still be used for | ||
| > escripts, but the internal implementation of archives for escripts |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does "internal implementation" mean here? The file format, or the code in the BEAM. If the latter, that's utterly irrelevant for users of escripts. If the former, it should be documented. (Haven't read the rest of the PR.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It means that instead of storing a zip archive in the escript, the BEAM files and the other files are stored in a different way. We intentionally didn't document how exactly they are stored, because we want to force tools that handle escripts containing multiple files to use escript:create/2 and escript:extract/2.
The support for zip archives for packaging Erlang applications is an experimental features, and as such can be subject to incompatible changes.
The support for archives in the code server and the
erl_prim_loadermodule complicates the implementation and make code loading slower even when no archives are used. Furthermore, the existence of the feature prevents or vatstly complicates further optimization of code loading.Therefore, this commit removes the support for code archives from the code server, and from the
codeanderl_prim_loadermodules.Having multiple BEAM files and other files in an
escriptis still supported, but in an incompatible way for escripts created by Erlang/OTP 28. We decided to do it like this to keepescript:create/2andescript:extract/2as simple as possible, and make it possible to phase out the old archive format as soon as possible.However, escripts created by Erlang/OTP 27 and earlier will run in Erlang/OTP 28, provided that they don't rely on archive features in the code server or
erl_prim_loader.