Create a new script instance for each script layer#2182
Open
cvb941 wants to merge 1 commit intoantonpup:devfrom
Open
Create a new script instance for each script layer#2182cvb941 wants to merge 1 commit intoantonpup:devfrom
cvb941 wants to merge 1 commit intoantonpup:devfrom
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
As far as I know, currently the user script files are compiled and instanced once during the startup. This forces you to use the same shared state between multiple script layers.
In this pull request, I propose to let each layer have its own instance of the script.
This way, I can have each script layer have its own connection to a web service, where they can get different values based on what I define in the script layer parameters.
This pull request proposes the following changes:
Known issues/To do:
I implemented this in the smallest way change-wise. The code could be more broadly redone to accomodate this change.
Also, the whole idea in the first place is up for discussion: Is this change even desirable? Or is there already another way to achieve this?
Please comment and feel free to edit. Thank you!