Yesterday Dmitry Lomov and I had a discussion about the typed objects API. Much of the discussion revolved around the specific issue of handles. In this post I will summarize the issues we discussed and review the various design options.

I’ll begin with a summary of what handles are and how they are used in current APIs; if this is familiar to you (cough Dave Herman cough) you may want to skip ahead to the section “Subtle points”.

An introduction to handles

Handles point into other typed objects

As envisioned in the current strawman, handles are a kind of movable pointer that can be used to point into arbitrary data structures. For example, imagine that we created an object representing a line:

var PointType = new StructType ({ x : float32 , y : float32 }); var LineType = new StructType ({ from : PointType , to : PointType }); var aLine = new LineType ({ from : { x : 1 , y : 2 }, to : { x : 3 , y : 4 }});

Now we could create a handle that points at the from coordinate:

var handle = PointType . handle ( aLine , " from " ); print ( handle . x , handle . y ); // prints 1, 2 handle . x += 1 ; print ( handle . x , handle . y ); // prints 2, 2

You can see that a handle is created by invoking the method handle on a type object; the handle can then only be used to point at data of the given type. You specify where the handle points by giving a base object and a path: in this case, aLine is the base object, and the path is the property "from" . We will see later that a path can consist of any number of property names and element indices.

Note: the wiki specifies that handles are created using new Handle(PointType, aLine, "from") instead of PointType.handle(aLine, "from") ; my branch differs from this, the distinction is unimportant and will be reconciled eventually.

Handles can be moved

In the simple example we just saw, a handle is not really different from any other typed object. After all, we could have rewritten the previous snippet not to use a handle and had the same effect:

var from = aLine . from ; // not a handle print ( from . x , from . y ); // prints 1, 2 from . x += 1 ; print ( from . x , from . y ); // prints 2, 2

However, using a handle gives us additional capabilities. For example, we can move a handle to point somewhere else, such as the to coordinate:

Handle . move ( handle , aLine , " to " ); print ( handle . x , handle . y ); // prints 3, 4

Handles allow you to avoid allocation

Moving handles makes it possible to write a loop that iterates through data without allocating values. For example, the following function visitPoints invokes a callback func on every point (both from and to ) that appears in a list of lines:

var LinesArray = new ArrayType ( LineType ); function visitPoints ( linesArray , func ) { var handle = Point . handle (); for ( var i = 0 ; i < linesArray . length ; i ++ ) { // Make handle point at linesArray[i].from: Handle . move ( handle , linesArray , i , " from " ); func ( handle ); // Make handle point at linesArray[i].to: Handle . move ( handle , linesArray , i , " to " ); func ( handle ); } }

If we were not using a handle here, then each iteration of the loop would require the allocation of two objects.

Handles as “out pointers”

One of the primary uses for handles is to serve as an out pointer – you may recall the idea from this previous post about integrating typed objects with PJS, but in case you do not let me summarize again.

Imagine that we wished to add an API build to all array types. The idea of build is to both allocate and initialize an array in one step. For example, if I wanted to have an array of points spaced evenly along the y=0 line, like [{x: 0, y: 0}, {x: 1, y: 0}, {x: 2, y: 0}] , I could write:

var PointsArray = new ArrayType(Point); var points = PointsArray.build(3, i => new Point({x: i, y: 0}));

We might implement build like so:

ArrayType . prototype . build = function build ( length , func ) { var result = new this ( length ); for ( var i = 0 ; i < length ; i ++ ) { // invoke callback result [ i ] = func ( i ); } return result ; };

All the code we have written thus far is quite reasonable and will work fine, but it is somewhat inefficient. For example, in every iteration of the build loop, we will invoke the callback func which will allocate a new point object. This new point object will then be copied into the final result array. At that point, the new point object is garbage and will eventually be collected.

A more efficient way to handle this same scenario would be to have the build API provide an out pointer – that is, a pointer into the result array – where func can directly write its result. This avoids the need for a copy altogether. Using this style of API would mean that a call to write might look like:

var PointsArray = new ArrayType(Point); var points = PointsArray.build(3, (i, out) => { out.x = i; out.y = 0; });

Now the callback does not return a point object but rather writes directly into out . It is also possible to use the Handle.set method to combine both writes into one statement:

var PointsArray = new ArrayType(Point); var points = PointsArray.build(3, (i, out) => { Handle.set(out, {x: i, y: 0}); });

Side note on optimization: You might object that writing the function using Handle.set still allocates a temporary object (the literal {x:i, y:0} ) which was what we were trying to avoid in the first place. This is of course true. However, two points to keep in mind: (1) the original code also allocated the same temporary, so in fact the functional style allocated two objects per iteration, not just one; (2) I fully expect that in both cases any decent JIT would be able to optimize away this temporary object. The latter is a relatively simple local optimization. In contrast, converting a function that returns its value into one that uses an out pointer is a relatively subtle optimization that can only be performed in limited circumstances.

To implement the new build API, you might write:

ArrayType . prototype . build = function build ( length , func ) { var result = new this ( length ); var handle = this . element . handle (); for ( var i = 0 ; i < length ; i ++ ) { // point `handle` at `result[i]` Handle . move ( handle , result , i ); // invoke callback func ( i , handle ); } return result ; };

This is almost the definition we’ve arrived at with PJS. The one difference is that we found that in some cases, in particular when you have an array of scalar data, using an out pointer is awkward. For example, imagine I wanted to create an array of even numbers like [0, 2, 4, 6] . Using an out pointer, I would have to write:

Uint32Array . build ( 4 , ( i , out ) => { Handle . set ( out , i * 2 ); });

This is siginficantly less nice than writing in the functional style, which would simply be Uint32Array.build(4, i => i * 2) .

To accommodate both use cases, in PJS we opted to make use of the out pointer optional. The idea is that we examine the return value from the callback function; if the function returned undefined , we assume that it used the out pointer to write its result. Otherwise, we copy the value that was returned into the array. So that means that build looks like this:

ArrayType . prototype . build = function build ( length , func ) { var result = new this ( length ); var handle = this . element . handle (); for ( var i = 0 ; i < length ; i ++ ) { // point `handle` at `result[i]` Handle . move ( handle , result , i ); // invoke callback var r = func ( i , handle ); // NEW: optionally copy result from callback if ( r !== undefined ) result [ i ] = r ; } return result ; };

Subtle points

OK, I’ve introduced the basic idea of handles and shown how we expect them to be used. Until this point I’ve only looked at how handles let users write programs that are more efficient – or at least could be more efficient, depending on the kinds of optimizations that the engine performs. I want to look now at some of the more subtle design constraints and goals of handles.

In the previous section I mentioned that handles can make functions like build more efficient (1) they can be moved, allowing you to create one object and then use it throughout the loop and (2) they can be used as out pointers, which serves to avoid both allocation and copying overhead. If you didn’t care about allocation costs, you might think that you could use normal typed objects instead of handles would be sufficient. In that case, the build function might look like:

ArrayType . prototype . build = function build ( length , func ) { var result = new this ( length ); var handle = this . element . handle (); for ( var i = 0 ; i < length ; i ++ ) { // Look ma, no handles! var r = func ( i , result [ i ]); if ( r !== undefined ) result [ i ] = r ; } return result ; };

This definition will almost work, but there are two important differences that I want to elaborate on.

Handles permit uniform treatment of scalar values

The version of build which does not use handles will work ok if you are constructed a complex type:

var PointsArray = new ArrayType(Point); var points = PointsArray.build(3, (i, out) => { out.x = i; out.y = 0; });

The reason for this is that when we call the callback, we supply result[i] . Since the result is an array of points, which are structs, this will create a new typed object pointing into the result array. Modifying the fields of this typed object also modifies the underlying result array.

However, the same is not true if you are constructing an array of integers. In that case, result[i] would yield an integer value, rather than a pointer into the array, and hence the user would not be able to use the out pointer form if the result is a scalar type.

This may not seem like a big deal, because as I wrote before the out pointer is kind of awkward when constructing scalar arrays. However, I believe it is nonetheless a downside, because using handles permits me to write generic, uniform code that works no matter what type of array is being built.

Note: The fact that handles behave differently from typed objects with respect to scalars is a plus, but also a minus, in that its different and asymmetric. More in the section on “controversial points” below. I am ultimately not sure how important it is to be able to always use out pointers no matter what type you are producing. As long as you are careful to permit the option of using return value or an out pointer, everything probably works out, and you can still write generic code that simply retains that pattern.

Handles as capabilities

The other interesting point about handles is that they can never be used to access any part of memory outside of the memory that they immediately point at. Let me elaborate. When the build function calls the func callback, it provides an out pointer pointing at the i th element in the array. We want to ensure that providing this out pointer only allows the func callback access to the memory for the i th element, and not other elements.

This guarantee is crucial for PJS, because we will be executing different iterations of build in parallel, and we want to be sure that if one thread is writing into array index 100 , it can’t use the out pointer to gain access to array index 0 and read or mutate that. This would induce data races.

If I use a typed object – at least as they are currently designed – there is no such guarantee. This is because a typed object can be used to gain access to the underlying array buffer. And unfortunately there is no way to hand out of a “subset” of an array buffer – instead, you access the entire thing, which means that even if I am only given a pointer to element 22 , I actually have access to the entire array. This design choice is somewhat forced upon us because we must be backwards compatible with typed arrays.

Controversial points

Let me dive now into some of the more controversial points of handles.

Handles are “nullable”

Unlike normal typed objects, handles can be “null”, meaning that they can be in a state where they do not point anywhere. Currently, this can only occur when handles are first created, if no initial path is supplied. For example, the common way to use a handle in a loop would be something like the following:

var handle = elementType . handle (); // handle is NULL here for ( var i = 0 ; i < array . length ; i ++ ) { Handle . move ( handle , array , i ); // handle is no longer null }

Here, a handle handle is first created in a NULL state and then, on each iteration of the loop, re-pointed.

Nullable handles means that (1) users can encounter errors by using a handle that doesn’t point anywhere and (2) the compiler must insert null checks, which decreases performance.

You might think that you could easily eliminate null handles by simply disallowing handles that are created without pointing at anything. This is true, but it would make working with handles in loops quite awkward. The code above would have to look something like:

if ( array . length > 0 ) { var handle = elementType . handle ( array , 0 ); // handle is not null for ( var i = 0 ; i < array . length ; i ++ ) { Handle . move ( handle , array , i ); ... } }

In this case, we gave an initial assignment for the handle but we never used it. This avoids null errors but also doesn’t contain a way to represent a handle in this invalid state where it is not yet intended to be used, so it’s debatable if this decreases user error.

Note: I will argue later that in the subtle points section that nullable handles are not necessarily bad and in fact provide potentially important capabilities.

Anybody can move a handle

One non-obvious fact is that, in the current API, handles can be moved by anyone, including the callback. This can be potentially problematic. For example, here is a slight variation on the final version of build routine that I gave you earlier. As you may recall, this version build() supplies an out pointer but also checks for a return value and potentially copies that return value into the result. I changed one line from the previous definition, higlighted with a comment.

ArrayType . prototype . build = function build ( length , func ) { var result = new this ( length ); var handle = this . element . handle (); for ( var i = 0 ; i < length ; i ++ ) { Handle . move ( handle , result , i ); // 1 var r = func ( i , handle ); if ( r !== undefined ) Handle . set ( handle , r ); // 2 -- Changed } return result ; };

As you can see, I changed the line marked 2 from result[i] = r to Handle.set(handle, r) . Since we just moved handle to point at result[i] in the line marked 1 , you might think that these two bits of code are equivalent. You would be wrong. The reason is that it is possible that, after calling func , the handle handle has been moved and no longer points into the result array. This is potentially a dangerous footgun.

Handles and typed objects are similar but different

I could imagine that handles and typed objects are simultaneously too different and too similar. That is, they behave similarly enough that you could almost ignore the differences, except for various edge cases. This can cause trouble for people learning the API.

Examples of edge cases where they differ:

Handles can be moved or null. Handles can point at scalar values like floats or ints. Handles do not permit access to the underlying buffer (see section below).

Design alternatives

So, what should we do with handles? I am going to present three different possible designs. Each of them preserves the basic memory encapsulation capability that I can give you a handle into a typed object without giving you full access to the entire typed object.

(1) Keep handles, embrace nullability

We can keep handles more-or-less as they are, meaning that they remove movable and nullable. It remains true that handles can be moved by anyone and you just have to live with that.

In this case, I would argue for adding an API to make handles return to a null state (e.g., Handle.move(handle) makes handle null). The reason for this is that it lets handles serve as revocable capabilities. This means that if I have a typed object I know is unaliased, I can give out a handle to it and then revoke that handle and still be sure that my typed object is unaliased.

One example use case for this that dherman and I have tossed around is the idea of initialized data that will be sent to another worker. The vague idea is that you can allocate memory directly in another worker’s memory space and then be given a handle to that memory you can write into. Afterwards, the handle is made null (of course this might be achievable with array buffer transfer instead).

(2) Keep handles, reject movability and nullability

We can keep handles, but disallow them from being moved. This implies that when you create a handle you always specify an object path. In this case, handles never help to reduce allocation, they only serve as a means of granting limited access to a buffer.

(3) Drop handles, add opaque typed object views

If handles aren’t helping us with reduced memory requirements, maybe we can drop them altogether. Instead we would allow you to create a new typed object relative to an original one and somehow specify that this new typed object will be created opaque, meaning that it does not grant access to the underlying buffer. This has the advantage of no longer having two concepts (handles, typed objects) but the possible disadvantage that it cannot work uniformly with scalars.

My preference

When I started writing this post, I was vacillating between options 2 and 3, but in the course of writing the post I think I have persuaded myself that I prefer option 1: keep handles and embrace nullability.

My arguments are:

Nullability is not so bad. It is already a thing in JS and we will never change that. It’s a minor point for optimization. Accesses to typed objects (as distinct from handles) still do not require null checks, so by avoiding handles users can avoid the price of null checks.

Nullable handles provide for better ocap. It is useful to be able to hand out access to a limited memory region without giving out the entire buffer. It is also useful to be able to take it away again. Being able to null a handle out later means that if you have a buffer that you know is unaliased, you can invoke a function with a handle into that buffer and then later null the handle out. You can now be sure that your original buffer is unaliased.

Avoiding allocation is important. It is tempting to say that allocation can be made free. After all, we’re all using highly optimized generational collectors, right? (ok, almost; go, terrence and jonco, go!). But I think this is ultimately false. First, no allocation is always cheaper than some allocation, even when the allocator is hyper optimized. Second, this is particularly true in a parallel setting (read on).

In the parallel case, the way that one handles allocation in a scalable way is to have each parallel thread equipped with its own set of independent memory pools, whether you call those nurseries or arenas or whatever. Allocating and setting up these independent memory pools is not super expensive, but it’s also not super cheap; it requires some amount of synchronization and is ultimately pure overhead. What I would like to do is to allocate those memory pools lazilly, meaning on first allocation. If we make handles relocatable, it is possible to avoid all allocation within the loop itself. This means that if your callback avoids allocating objects, which in many cases is very possible, we can avoid setting up memory pools altogether. This should help to lower the overhead of entering and exiting the parallel section which is crucial to enabling better parallel speedups.