You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Decide whether we even want Ractor-based sandboxing, then implement it.
This mostly works today except for Google::Protobuf (see protocolbuffers/protobuf#19321). But we have all these protos and impl in Rust, so it would not be that hard to make a method_missing version of this (which is effectively what the existing Ruby extension does at https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/tree/main/ruby/ext/google/protobuf_c), just effort and confirming we are ok abandoning the official proto library (which has other benefits such as not clashing with users' protobuf library use).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It has been decided that while there are a lot of state-isolation benefits to Ractor-based workflows, since Google::Protobuf doesn't support them and since they are experimental, it is not worth the effort to require them today. We can revisit when ecosystem support improves.
Describe the solution you'd like
Decide whether we even want Ractor-based sandboxing, then implement it.
This mostly works today except for
Google::Protobuf
(see protocolbuffers/protobuf#19321). But we have all these protos and impl in Rust, so it would not be that hard to make amethod_missing
version of this (which is effectively what the existing Ruby extension does at https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/tree/main/ruby/ext/google/protobuf_c), just effort and confirming we are ok abandoning the official proto library (which has other benefits such as not clashing with users' protobuf library use).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: