Support references in serialization.

Support references in serialization.

R=sammccall@google.com,vsm@google.com

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=9632

[podivilov, 2012-07-13 11:07:55]

lgtm

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js
File client/dart.js (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode62
client/dart.js:62: function do(message) {
doSerialize maybe?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode65
client/dart.js:65: } else if (typeof(message) == 'string' ||
no else, please

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode66
client/dart.js:66: typeof(message) == 'number' ||
wrong indentation

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode70
client/dart.js:70: return checkedSerialization(message, function(id) {
up to you, but I think
var index = visited.indexOf(message);
if (index !== -1) return ['ref', index];
// serialize, push, return
is ways easier to read.

[vsm, 2012-07-13 14:10:40]

lgtm

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js
File client/dart.js (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode53
client/dart.js:53: if (visited[i] === obj) {
An expando on obj to avoid the linear search?

[Anton Muhin, 2012-07-13 15:30:58]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js
File client/dart.js (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode53
client/dart.js:53: if (visited[i] === obj) {
On 2012/07/13 14:10:40, vsm wrote:
> An expando on obj to avoid the linear search?

That's probably stupid, but for some reason I don't want to add/remove expando
on objects not to break various JS optimizations.  thoughts?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode62
client/dart.js:62: function do(message) {
On 2012/07/13 11:07:55, podivilov wrote:
> doSerialize maybe?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode65
client/dart.js:65: } else if (typeof(message) == 'string' ||
On 2012/07/13 11:07:55, podivilov wrote:
> no else, please

just keeping the way old code was structured.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode66
client/dart.js:66: typeof(message) == 'number' ||
On 2012/07/13 11:07:55, podivilov wrote:
> wrong indentation

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode70
client/dart.js:70: return checkedSerialization(message, function(id) {
Absolutely, thanks, I should learn JS core lib.

On 2012/07/13 11:07:55, podivilov wrote:
> up to you, but I think
> var index = visited.indexOf(message);
> if (index !== -1) return ['ref', index];
> // serialize, push, return
> is ways easier to read.

[vsm, 2012-07-13 15:39:01]

still lgtm

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js
File client/dart.js (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode53
client/dart.js:53: if (visited[i] === obj) {
You may be right.  From what I understand, deleting turns the object to a
dictionary.  That may be worse than the linear search here depending on usage. 
How about a comment on your concern?

On 2012/07/13 15:30:58, Anton Mukhin wrote:
> On 2012/07/13 14:10:40, vsm wrote:
> > An expando on obj to avoid the linear search?
> 
> That's probably stupid, but for some reason I don't want to add/remove expando
> on objects not to break various JS optimizations.  thoughts?

[Anton Muhin, 2012-07-13 15:43:28]

Thanks a lot for all the comments, I am submitting it now.  I'll address all
further comments in a separate cl.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js
File client/dart.js (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10693174/diff/1/client/dart.js#newcode53
client/dart.js:53: if (visited[i] === obj) {
Good idea, done.

On 2012/07/13 15:39:01, vsm wrote:
> You may be right.  From what I understand, deleting turns the object to a
> dictionary.  That may be worse than the linear search here depending on usage.

> How about a comment on your concern?
> 
> On 2012/07/13 15:30:58, Anton Mukhin wrote:
> > On 2012/07/13 14:10:40, vsm wrote:
> > > An expando on obj to avoid the linear search?
> > 
> > That's probably stupid, but for some reason I don't want to add/remove
expando
> > on objects not to break various JS optimizations.  thoughts?
>