6 Beiträge mit "Electron Internals" markiert

Over the past weeks, we’ve received several questions about the differences between the new WebView2 and Electron.

Both teams have the expressed goal of making web-tech the best it can be on the Desktop, and a shared comprehensive comparison is being discussed.

Electron and WebView2 are fast-moving and constantly evolving projects. We have assembled a brief snapshot of similarities and differences between Electron and WebView2 as they exist today.

Architecture Overview​

Electron and WebView2 both build from the Chromium source for rendering web content. Strictly speaking, WebView2 builds from the Edge source, but Edge is built using a fork of the Chromium source. Electron does not share any DLLs with Chrome. WebView2 binaries hard link against Edge (Stable channel as of Edge 90), so they share disk and some working set. See Evergreen distribution mode for more info.

Electron apps always bundle and distribute the exact version of Electron with which they were developed. WebView2 has two options in distribution. You can bundle the exact WebView2 library your application was developed with, or you can use a shared-runtime version that may already be present on the system. WebView2 provides tools for each approach, including a bootstrapping installer in case the shared runtime is missing. WebView2 is shipped inbox starting with Windows 11.

Applications that bundle their frameworks are responsible for updating those frameworks, including minor security releases. For apps using the shared WebView2 runtime, WebView2 has its own updater, similar to Chrome or Edge, that runs independent of your application. Updating the application's code or any of its other dependencies is still a responsibility for the developer, same as with Electron. Neither Electron nor WebView2 is managed by Windows Update.

Both Electron and WebView2 inherit Chromium’s multi-process architecture - namely, a single main process that communicates with one-or-more renderer processes. These processes are entirely separate from other applications running on the system. Every Electron application is a separate process tree, containing a root browser-process, some utility processes, and zero or more render processes. WebView2 apps that use the same user data folder (like a suite of apps would do), share non-renderer processes. WebView2 apps using different data folders do not share processes.

• ElectronJS Process Model:

  

• WebView2 Based Application Process Model:

  

Read more about WebView2’s process model and Electron’s process model here.

Electron provides APIs for common desktop application needs such as menus, file system access, notifications, and more. WebView2 is a component meant to be integrated into an application framework such as WinForms, WPF, WinUI, or Win32. WebView2 does not provide operating system APIs outside the web standard via JavaScript.

Node.js is integrated into Electron. Electron applications may use any Node.js API, module, or node-native-addon from the renderer and main processes. A WebView2 application does not assume which language or framework the rest of your application is written in. Your JavaScript code must proxy any operating system access through the application-host process.

Electron strives to maintain compatibility with the web API, including APIs developed from the Fugu Project. We have a snapshot of Electron’s Fugu API compatibility. WebView2 maintains a similar list of API differences from Edge.

Electron has a configurable security model for web content, from full-access to full-sandbox. WebView2 content is always sandboxed. Electron has comprehensive security documentation on choosing your security model. WebView2 also has security best practices.

The Electron source is maintained and available on GitHub. Applications can modify can build their own brands of Electron. The WebView2 source is not available on GitHub.

Quick Summary:

Performance Discussion​

When it comes to rendering your web content, we expect little performance difference between Electron, WebView2, and any other Chromium-based renderer. We created scaffolding for apps built using Electron, C++ + WebView2, and C# + WebView2 for those interested to investigate potential performance differences.

There are a few differences that come into play outside of rendering web content, and folks from Electron, WebView2, Edge, and others have expressed interest in working on a detailed comparison including PWAs.

Inter-Process Communication (IPC)​

There is one difference we want to highlight immediately, as we believe it is often a performance consideration in Electron apps.

In Chromium, the browser process acts as an IPC broker between sandboxed renderers and the rest of the system. While Electron allows unsandboxed render processes, many apps choose to enable the sandbox for added security. WebView2 always has the sandbox enabled, so for most Electron and WebView2 apps IPC can impact overall performance.

Even though Electron and WebView2 have a similar process models, the underlying IPC differs. Communicating between JavaScript and C++ or C# requires marshalling, most commonly to a JSON string. JSON serialization/parsing is an expensive operation, and IPC-bottlenecks can negatively impact performance. Starting with Edge 93, WV2 will use CBOR for network events.

Electron supports direct IPC between any two processes via the MessagePorts API, which utilize the structured clone algorithm. Applications which leverage this can avoid paying the JSON-serialization tax when sending objects between processes.

Zusammenfassung​

Electron and WebView2 have a number of differences, but don't expect much difference with respect to how they perform rendering web content. Ultimately, an app’s architecture and JavaScript libraries/frameworks have a larger impact on memory and performance than anything else because Chromium is Chromium regardless of where it is running.

Special thanks to the WebView2 team for reviewing this post, and ensuring we have an up-to-date view of the WebView2 architecture. They welcome any feedback on the project.

How do Electron's features written in C++ or Objective-C get to JavaScript so they're available to an end-user?

Background​

Electron is a JavaScript platform whose primary purpose is to lower the barrier to entry for developers to build robust desktop apps without worrying about platform-specific implementations. However, at its core, Electron itself still needs platform-specific functionality to be written in a given system language.

In reality, Electron handles the native code for you so that you can focus on a single JavaScript API.

How does that work, though? How do Electron's features written in C++ or Objective-C get to JavaScript so they're available to an end-user?

To trace this pathway, let's start with the app module.

By opening the app.ts file inside our lib/ directory, you'll find the following line of code towards the top:

const binding = process.electronBinding('app');

This line points directly to Electron's mechanism for binding its C++/Objective-C modules to JavaScript for use by developers. This function is created by the header and implementation file for the ElectronBindings class.

process.electronBinding​

These files add the process.electronBinding function, which behaves like Node.js’ process.binding. process.binding is a lower-level implementation of Node.js' require() method, except it allows users to require native code instead of other code written in JS. This custom process.electronBinding function confers the ability to load native code from Electron.

When a top-level JavaScript module (like app) requires this native code, how is the state of that native code determined and set? Where are the methods exposed up to JavaScript? What about the properties?

native_mate​

At present, answers to this question can be found in native_mate: a fork of Chromium's gin library that makes it easier to marshal types between C++ and JavaScript.

Inside native_mate/native_mate there's a header and implementation file for object_template_builder. This is what allow us to form modules in native code whose shape conforms to what JavaScript developers would expect.

mate::ObjectTemplateBuilder​

If we look at every Electron module as an object, it becomes easier to see why we would want to use object_template_builder to construct them. This class is built on top of a class exposed by V8, which is Google’s open source high-performance JavaScript and WebAssembly engine, written in C++. V8 implements the JavaScript (ECMAScript) specification, so its native functionality implementations can be directly correlated to implementations in JavaScript. For example, v8::ObjectTemplate gives us JavaScript objects without a dedicated constructor function and prototype. It uses Object[.prototype], and in JavaScript would be equivalent to Object.create().

To see this in action, look to the implementation file for the app module, atom_api_app.cc. At the bottom is the following:

mate::ObjectTemplateBuilder(isolate, prototype->PrototypeTemplate())
    .SetMethod("getGPUInfo", &App::GetGPUInfo)

In the above line, .SetMethod is called on mate::ObjectTemplateBuilder. .SetMethod can be called on any instance of the ObjectTemplateBuilder class to set methods on the Object prototype in JavaScript, with the following syntax:

.SetMethod("method_name", &function_to_bind)

This is the JavaScript equivalent of:

function App{}
App.prototype.getGPUInfo = function () {
  // implementation here
}

This class also contains functions to set properties on a module:

.SetProperty("property_name", &getter_function_to_bind)

oder

.SetProperty("property_name", &getter_function_to_bind, &setter_function_to_bind)

These would in turn be the JavaScript implementations of Object.defineProperty:

function App {}
Object.defineProperty(App.prototype, 'myProperty', {
  get() {
    return _myProperty
  }
})

und

function App {}
Object.defineProperty(App.prototype, 'myProperty', {
  get() {
    return _myProperty
  }
  set(newPropertyValue) {
    _myProperty = newPropertyValue
  }
})

It’s possible to create JavaScript objects formed with prototypes and properties as developers expect them, and more clearly reason about functions and properties implemented at this lower system level!

The decision around where to implement any given module method is itself a complex and oft-nondeterministic one, which we'll cover in a future post.

Electron is based on Google's open-source Chromium, a project that is not necessarily designed to be used by other projects. This post introduces how Chromium is built as a library for Electron's use, and how the build system has evolved over the years.

Using CEF​

The Chromium Embedded Framework (CEF) is a project that turns Chromium into a library, and provides stable APIs based on Chromium's codebase. Very early versions of Atom editor and NW.js used CEF.

To maintain a stable API, CEF hides all the details of Chromium and wraps Chromium's APIs with its own interface. So when we needed to access underlying Chromium APIs, like integrating Node.js into web pages, the advantages of CEF became blockers.

So in the end both Electron and NW.js switched to using Chromium's APIs directly.

Building as part of Chromium​

Even though Chromium does not officially support outside projects, the codebase is modular and it is easy to build a minimal browser based on Chromium. The core module providing the browser interface is called Content Module.

To develop a project with Content Module, the easiest way is to build the project as part of Chromium. This can be done by first checking out Chromium's source code, and then adding the project to Chromium's DEPS file.

NW.js and very early versions of Electron are using this way for building.

The downside is, Chromium is a very large codebase and requires very powerful machines to build. For normal laptops, that can take more than 5 hours. So this greatly impacts the number of developers that can contribute to the project, and it also makes development slower.

Building Chromium as a single shared library​

As a user of Content Module, Electron does not need to modify Chromium's code under most cases, so an obvious way to improve the building of Electron is to build Chromium as a shared library, and then link with it in Electron. In this way developers no longer need to build all off Chromium when contributing to Electron.

Das libchromiumcontent Projekt wurde von @aroben zu diesem Zweck erstellt. It builds the Content Module of Chromium as a shared library, and then provides Chromium's headers and prebuilt binaries for download. Es baut das Content Modul von Chromium als freigegebene Bibliothek und stellt dann die Kopfzeilen von Chromium und vorkompilierte Binärdateien zum Download bereit.

Das brightray Projekt wurde ebenfalls als Teil von libchromiumcontent geboren, das eine dünne Schicht um das Content-Modul bereitstellt.

By using libchromiumcontent and brightray together, developers can quickly build a browser without getting into the details of building Chromium. And it removes the requirement of a fast network and powerful machine for building the project.

Außer Electron wurden auch andere Chromium-basierte Projekte auf diese Art und Weise eingebaut, wie der Breach-Browser.

Filtering exported symbols​

On Windows there is a limitation of how many symbols one shared library can export. As the codebase of Chromium grew, the number of symbols exported in libchromiumcontent soon exceeded the limitation.

The solution was to filter out unneeded symbols when generating the DLL file. It worked by providing a .def file to the linker, and then using a script to judge whether symbols under a namespace should be exported.

By taking this approach, though Chromium kept adding new exported symbols, libchromiumcontent could still generate shared library files by stripping more symbols.

Component build​

Before talking about the next steps taken in libchromiumcontent, it is important to introduce the concept of component build in Chromium first.

As a huge project, the linking step takes very long in Chromium when building. Normally when a developer makes a small change, it can take 10 minutes to see the final output. To solve this, Chromium introduced component build, which builds each module in Chromium as separated shared libraries, so the time spent in the final linking step becomes unnoticeable.

Shipping raw binaries​

With Chromium continuing to grow, there were so many exported symbols in Chromium that even the symbols of Content Module and Webkit were more than the limitation. It was impossible to generate a usable shared library by simply stripping symbols.

Am Ende mussten wir die rohen Binärdateien von Chromium verschicken, anstatt eine einzige gemeinsame Bibliothek zu erstellen.

As introduced earlier there are two build modes in Chromium. As a result of shipping raw binaries, we have to ship two different distributions of binaries in libchromiumcontent. One is called static_library build, which includes all static libraries of each module generated by the normal build of Chromium. The other is shared_library, which includes all shared libraries of each module generated by the component build.

In Electron, the Debug version is linked with the shared_library version of libchromiumcontent, because it is small to download and takes little time when linking the final executable. And the Release version of Electron is linked with the static_library version of libchromiumcontent, so the compiler can generate full symbols which are important for debugging, and the linker can do much better optimization since it knows which object files are needed and which are not.

So for normal development, developers only need to build the Debug version, which does not require a good network or powerful machine. Though the Release version then requires much better hardware to build, it can generate better optimized binaries.

The gn update​

Being one of the largest projects in the world, most normal systems are not suitable for building Chromium, and the Chromium team develops their own build tools.

Earlier versions of Chromium were using gyp as a build system, but it suffers from being slow, and its configuration file becomes hard to understand for complex projects. After years of development, Chromium switched to gn as a build system, which is much faster and has a clear architecture.

One of the improvements of gn is to introduce source_set, which represents a group of object files. In gyp, each module was represented by either static_library or shared_library, and for the normal build of Chromium, each module generated a static library and they were linked together in the final executable. By using gn, each module now only generates a bunch of object files, and the final executable just links all the object files together, so the intermediate static library files are no longer generated.

This improvement however made great trouble to libchromiumcontent, because the intermediate static library files were actually needed by libchromiumcontent.

The first try to solve this was to patch gn to generate static library files, which solved the problem, but was far from a decent solution.

Der zweite Versuch wurde von @alespergl bis erstellt benutzerdefinierte statische Bibliotheken aus der Liste der Objektdateien. It used a trick to first run a dummy build to collect a list of generated object files, and then actually build the static libraries by feeding gn with the list. It only made minimal changes to Chromium's source code, and kept Electron's building architecture still.

Zusammenfassung​

As you can see, compared to building Electron as part of Chromium, building Chromium as a library takes greater efforts and requires continuous maintenance. However the latter removes the requirement of powerful hardware to build Electron, thus enabling a much larger range of developers to build and contribute to Electron. The effort is totally worth it.

As a language with garbage collection, JavaScript frees users from managing resources manually. But because Electron hosts this environment, it has to be very careful avoiding both memory and resources leaks.

This post introduces the concept of weak references and how they are used to manage resources in Electron.

Weak references​

In JavaScript, whenever you assign an object to a variable, you are adding a reference to the object. As long as there is a reference to the object, it will always be kept in memory. Once all references to the object are gone, i.e. there are no longer variables storing the object, the JavaScript engine will recoup the memory on next garbage collection.

A weak reference is a reference to an object that allows you to get the object without effecting whether it will be garbage collected or not. You will also get notified when the object is garbage collected. It then becomes possible to manage resources with JavaScript.

Using the NativeImage class in Electron as an example, every time you call the nativeImage.create() API, a NativeImage instance is returned and it is storing the image data in C++. Once you are done with the instance and the JavaScript engine (V8) has garbage collected the object, code in C++ will be called to free the image data in memory, so there is no need for users manage this manually.

Ein weiteres Beispiel ist das Verschwindendes Problem, die visuell zeigt, wie das Fenster Müll gesammelt wird, wenn alle Referenzen auf ihn verschwunden sind.

Testing weak references in Electron​

There is no way to directly test weak references in raw JavaScript since the language doesn't have a way to assign weak references. The only API in JavaScript related to weak references is WeakMap, but since it only creates weak-reference keys, it is impossible to know when an object has been garbage collected.

In versions of Electron prior to v0.37.8, you can use the internal v8Util.setDestructor API to test weak references, which adds a weak reference to the passed object and calls the callback when the object is garbage collected:

// Code unten kann nur auf Electron < v0.37.8 ausgeführt werden.
var v8Util = process.atomBinding('v8_util');

var object = {};
v8Util.setDestructor(object, function () {
  console.log('The object is garbage collected');
});

// Remove all references to the object.
object = undefined;
// Manually starts a GC.
gc();
// Console prints "The object is garbage collected".

Note that you have to start Electron with the --js-flags="--expose_gc" command switch to expose the internal gc function.

The API was removed in later versions because V8 actually does not allow running JavaScript code in the destructor and in later versions doing so would cause random crashes.

Weak references in the remote module​

Apart from managing native resources with C++, Electron also needs weak references to manage JavaScript resources. An example is Electron's remote module, which is a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) module that allows using objects in the main process from renderer processes.

One key challenge with the remote module is to avoid memory leaks. When users acquire a remote object in the renderer process, the remote module must guarantee the object continues to live in the main process until the references in the renderer process are gone. Additionally, it also has to make sure the object can be garbage collected when there are no longer any reference to it in renderer processes.

For example, without proper implementation, following code would cause memory leaks quickly:

const { remote } = require('electron');

for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {
  remote.nativeImage.createEmpty();
}

The resource management in the remote module is simple. Whenever an object is requested, a message is sent to the main process and Electron will store the object in a map and assign an ID for it, then send the ID back to the renderer process. In the renderer process, the remote module will receive the ID and wrap it with a proxy object and when the proxy object is garbage collected, a message will be sent to the main process to free the object.

Using remote.require API as an example, a simplified implementation looks like this:

remote.require = function (name) {
  // Tell the main process to return the metadata of the module.
  const meta = ipcRenderer.sendSync('REQUIRE', name);
  // Create a proxy object.
  const object = metaToValue(meta);
  // Tell the main process to free the object when the proxy object is garbage
  // collected.
  v8Util.setDestructor(object, function () {
    ipcRenderer.send('FREE', meta.id);
  });
  return object;
};

Im Hauptprozess:

const map = {};
const id = 0;

ipcMain.on('REQUIRE', function (event, name) {
  const object = require(name);
  // Add a reference to the object.
  map[++id] = object;
  // Convert the object to metadata.
  event.returnValue = valueToMeta(id, object);
});

ipcMain.on('FREE', function (event, id) {
  delete map[id];
});

Maps with weak values​

With the previous simple implementation, every call in the remote module will return a new remote object from the main process, and each remote object represents a reference to the object in the main process.

The design itself is fine, but the problem is when there are multiple calls to receive the same object, multiple proxy objects will be created and for complicated objects this can add huge pressure on memory usage and garbage collection.

For example, the following code:

const { remote } = require('electron');

for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {
  remote.getCurrentWindow();
}

It first uses a lot of memory creating proxy objects and then occupies the CPU (Central Processing Unit) for garbage collecting them and sending IPC messages.

An obvious optimization is to cache the remote objects: when there is already a remote object with the same ID, the previous remote object will be returned instead of creating a new one.

This is not possible with the API in JavaScript core. Using the normal map to cache objects will prevent V8 from garbage collecting the objects, while the WeakMap class can only use objects as weak keys.

To solve this, a map type with values as weak references is added, which is perfect for caching objects with IDs. Now the remote.require looks like this:

const remoteObjectCache = v8Util.createIDWeakMap()

remote.require = function (name) {
  // Tell the main process to return the meta data of the module.
  ...
  if (remoteObjectCache.has(meta.id))
    return remoteObjectCache.get(meta.id)
  // Create a proxy object.
  ...
  remoteObjectCache.set(meta.id, object)
  return object
}

Note that the remoteObjectCache stores objects as weak references, so there is no need to delete the key when the object is garbage collected.

Native code​

For people interested in the C++ code of weak references in Electron, it can be found in following files:

The setDestructor API:

• object_life_monitor.cc
• object_life_monitor.h

The createIDWeakMap API:

• key_weak_map.h
• atom_api_key_weak_map.h

This is the second post in an ongoing series explaining the internals of Electron. Schaue dir den ersten Beitrag über die Integration von Ereignis-Schleifen an, falls du es noch nicht getan hast.

Most people use Node for server-side applications, but because of Node's rich API set and thriving community, it is also a great fit for an embedded library. This post explains how Node is used as a library in Electron.

Build system​

Sowohl Knoten als auch Electron verwenden GYP als Build-Systeme. If you want to embed Node inside your app, you have to use it as your build system too.

New to GYP? Lies diese Anleitung bevor du in diesem Beitrag weitermachst.

Node's flags​

Der Knoten. yp Datei im Quellcode-Verzeichnis von Node beschreibt, wie Knoten gebaut wird, zusammen mit vielen GYP Variablen steuern, welche Teile von Knoten aktiviert sind und ob bestimmte Konfigurationen geöffnet werden sollen.

To change the build flags, you need to set the variables in the .gypi file of your project. The configure script in Node can generate some common configurations for you, for example running ./configure --shared will generate a config.gypi with variables instructing Node to be built as a shared library.

Electron does not use the configure script since it has its own build scripts. Die Konfigurationen für den Knoten sind in der common.gypi Datei im Wurzel-Quellcode-Verzeichnis definiert.

Link Node with Electron​

In Electron, Node is being linked as a shared library by setting the GYP variable node_shared to true, so Node's build type will be changed from executable to shared_library, and the source code containing the Node's main entry point will not be compiled.

Since Electron uses the V8 library shipped with Chromium, the V8 library included in Node's source code is not used. This is done by setting both node_use_v8_platform and node_use_bundled_v8 to false.

Shared library or static library​

When linking with Node, there are two options: you can either build Node as a static library and include it in the final executable, or you can build it as a shared library and ship it alongside the final executable.

In Electron, Node was built as a static library for a long time. This made the build simple, enabled the best compiler optimizations, and allowed Electron to be distributed without an extra node.dll file.

Dies änderte sich jedoch nach dem Wechsel von Chrome auf BoringSSL. BoringSSL ist ein Fork von OpenSSL das mehrere ungenutzte APIs entfernt und viele vorhandene Schnittstellen ändert. Because Node still uses OpenSSL, the compiler would generate numerous linking errors due to conflicting symbols if they were linked together.

Electron konnte BoringSSL im Knoten nicht verwenden oder OpenSSL in Chromium, verwenden damit die einzige Option war, auf den Knoten als freigegebene Bibliothek zu wechseln, und die BoringSSL und OpenSSL Symbole in den einzelnen Komponenten verbergen.

This change brought Electron some positive side effects. Before this change, you could not rename the executable file of Electron on Windows if you used native modules because the name of the executable was hard coded in the import library. After Node was built as a shared library, this limitation was gone because all native modules were linked to node.dll, whose name didn't need to be changed.

Supporting native modules​

Native Module in Knotenarbeit, indem Sie eine Eintragsfunktion für Knoten definieren, und durchsuchen Sie dann die Symbole von V8 und libuv von Node. This is a bit troublesome for embedders because by default the symbols of V8 and libuv are hidden when building Node as a library and native modules will fail to load because they cannot find the symbols.

So in order to make native modules work, the V8 and libuv symbols were exposed in Electron. For V8 this is done by forcing all symbols in Chromium's configuration file to be exposed. Für libuv wird erreicht, indem die BUILDING_UV_SHARED=1 Definition gesetzt wird.

Starting Node in your app​

After all the work of building and linking with Node, the final step is to run Node in your app.

Node doesn't provide many public APIs for embedding itself into other apps. Normalerweise können Sie einfach node::Start und node::Init aufrufen, um eine neue Knoten-Instanz zu starten. However, if you are building a complex app based on Node, you have to use APIs like node::CreateEnvironment to precisely control every step.

In Electron, Node is started in two modes: the standalone mode that runs in the main process, which is similar to official Node binaries, and the embedded mode which inserts Node APIs into web pages. The details of this will be explained in a future post.

This is the first post of a series that explains the internals of Electron. This post introduces how Node's event loop is integrated with Chromium in Electron.

Es gab viele Versuche, Knoten für GUI-Programmierung zu verwenden, wie node-gui für GTK+ Bindungen und node-qt für QT Bindings. But none of them work in production because GUI toolkits have their own message loops while Node uses libuv for its own event loop, and the main thread can only run one loop at the same time. So the common trick to run GUI message loop in Node is to pump the message loop in a timer with very small interval, which makes GUI interface response slow and occupies lots of CPU resources.

During the development of Electron we met the same problem, though in a reversed way: we had to integrate Node's event loop into Chromium's message loop.

The main process and renderer process​

Before we dive into the details of message loop integration, I'll first explain the multi-process architecture of Chromium.

In Electron gibt es zwei Arten von Prozessen: den Hauptprozess und den Renderer Prozess (dies ist eigentlich sehr vereinfacht, für eine vollständige Ansicht siehe Multiprozess-Architektur). The main process is responsible for GUI work like creating windows, while the renderer process only deals with running and rendering web pages.

Electron allows using JavaScript to control both the main process and renderer process, which means we have to integrate Node into both processes.

Replacing Chromium's message loop with libuv​

My first try was reimplementing Chromium's message loop with libuv.

It was easy for the renderer process, since its message loop only listened to file descriptors and timers, and I only needed to implement the interface with libuv.

However it was significantly more difficult for the main process. Each platform has its own kind of GUI message loops. macOS Chromium uses NSRunLoop, whereas Linux uses glib. I tried lots of hacks to extract the underlying file descriptors out of the native GUI message loops, and then fed them to libuv for iteration, but I still met edge cases that did not work.

So finally I added a timer to poll the GUI message loop in a small interval. As a result the process took a constant CPU usage, and certain operations had long delays.

Polling Node's event loop in a separate thread​

As libuv matured, it was then possible to take another approach.

The concept of backend fd was introduced into libuv, which is a file descriptor (or handle) that libuv polls for its event loop. So by polling the backend fd it is possible to get notified when there is a new event in libuv.

So in Electron I created a separate thread to poll the backend fd, and since I was using the system calls for polling instead of libuv APIs, it was thread safe. And whenever there was a new event in libuv's event loop, a message would be posted to Chromium's message loop, and the events of libuv would then be processed in the main thread.

In this way I avoided patching Chromium and Node, and the same code was used in both the main and renderer processes.

The code​

You can find the implemention of the message loop integration in the node_bindings files under electron/atom/common/. It can be easily reused for projects that want to integrate Node.

Update: Implementation moved to electron/shell/common/node_bindings.cc.