|
|
|
|
|
|
by luke_wagner
2409 days ago
|
|
|
To the question of "how would dynamic linking work in the future", as already stated in the article, a nanoprocess doesn't need to correspond 1:1 to a wasm module/instance. Rather, N wasm instances can share a single wasm memory to collectively represent a single nanoprocess. From an external point of view, whether a nanoprocess is implemented as 1 or N instances wouldn't be visible -- it's an impl detail -- and the memory is (still) encapsulated by the nanoprocess. Thus, there is a two-level hierarchy of: a graph of shared-nothing-linked nanoprocesses each containing a graph of shared-everything wasm instances. There's still a lot more details to figure out, of course, but that's true for wasm dynamic (shared-everything) linking in general. |
|
|