graphql-jit VS webextensions

In the end like all performance questions you'll have to measure it. Persisted queries, and even more extreme approaches, like a GraphQL JIT (https://github.com/zalando-incubator/graphql-jit) can remove a lot of the overhead.

We faced something similar. To improve GraphQL performance, we use graphql-jit. We turned off all other tracing that datadog turns on by default. Then, we then wrote a custom tracer to connect graphql-jit to dd-trace. Hopefully this same pattern works for you!

GraphQL JIT – GraphQL execution using a JIT compiler\ (0 comments)

https://github.com/zalando-incubator/graphql-jit#compile-a-q...

so I guess the difference is instead of having totally generic functions that parse the query every time, instead you can call a factory function up front to get a specialised function for a particular query

and V8 JIT can make that faster

JS has always been special & excellent because it allows multiphase programming. That one coild just add more code has been unique versus the world of statuc languages, where maybe youcd have some tool to generate stubs for Thrift or gRPC, then compule that in to your program. Which works ok, if and only if you know ahead of time what schemas you might need. Im these cases, you have to give up on stub code & start using more interprtted systems.

The advantages in js have been colossal, often an easy order of magnitude win to compile selectors & queries & other fast inner loop bits into jit compiled code versus having userland interpretters. Some of thd rete engines enjoy this. Just today there's graphql-jit. https://github.com/zalando-incubator/graphql-jit/blob/main/s...

Everything you say is full of doubt & scorn & skepticism. I just cant imagine living im such a world where each system had to know fully well ahead of time each type of data it might want to interact with, might have to have that precompiled & baked in. Thatcs a shitty miserable world that looks like the hell JS plucked us out of, by being a flexible, dynamic language that could load in routines & change it's behavior over time. Screw that dark hell world.

By using useParserCache we make sure to parse every unique operation only once. By using useValidationCache we make sure to validate every unique operation only once. By using useGraphQLJit we replace the default execute function with a just-in-time implementation.

One thing to understand is that, if you are using Node.js graphql-js would typically be the underlying implementation of all libraries and ultimately everything would get converted to JS/TS objects typically an AST ultimately making all these as abstractions on top of the existing way to define schemas. Note that the implementation can differ a bit in other languages or even within Node.js if you are using other ways of implementation like graphql-jit

Could you provide more context? the GraphQLJit plugin is a lightweight wrapper around graphql-jit. Could you share your previous datadog/graphql setup? Would love to dig in and find a proper solution!

Customizable runtime. Use custom GraphQL implementation such as graphql-jit or rolling our own for performance and cutting-edge features.

I've edited my comment to also include a link to the Chrome docs, but that FAQ entry also has the link to an issue in the webextensions repository indicating it's a limitation of MV3: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/112

Google outlawing dynamic code in Web Extensions/mv3 is a travesty of high order. There's no place I want to be able to be more alive than my agents. Yet my agents must all be dead. For shame, ye villains.

https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/139

This post definitely was quite a technical explanation. The opening framing, to me, means the world.

The other big change of mv3 that gets no coverage but which is dear to me is that mv3 outlaws any kind of dynamic code. The whole app has to be statically defined. This makes it much easier to know what's running, since an extension can no longer go pull in extra code, but it greatly reduces what you can do as an extension too. Extensions have to have all behaviors predefined. I can't dial home & load my behaviors. Here's the issue, https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/139

For a while it meant that userscripts didn't have any way to run. So Google introduced a new API for user scripting. But those extensions only run in "developer" mode. I'm guessing that means when devtools are open?

I agree a lot with your premise. It sure seems like Google is targeting everyone with these changes, but that better real affordances & escape hatches need to be builtin to not maim the lives of power users. It took a long long time to come up with a userscript solution, and it seems like an awful doesnt-work-for-me workaround (I use userscripts not to dev but to modify everyday experiences). Chrome just hasn't been taking their obligation to user agency seriously.

> the extension APIs are standardised enough that this is actually possible a lot of the time

A bit off topic, but as a co-chair of the WebExtensions Community Group[1] (WECG) I'm a bit touchy about the calling WebExtensions "standardized." A few years back the Browser Extensions Community Group[2] created a spec for WebExtensions, but it never reached a state that we'd normally refer to as a web standard. (Technically W3C community groups can only produce "Reports" and these documents are not on the standards track.[3])

FWIW, I'm very bullish about specifying and (hopefully) standardizing the WebExtensions platform. I'm especially excited about having a good chunk of dedicated time to sit with browser folks at TPAC 2023[4] and try to work out some open questions about where we're going and how we're going to get there.

[1]: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/

While I was trying to find out what Firefox's limits are I came across this interesting issue on the W3C's webextensions repo: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319

4 days ago the Chromium developers proposed upping the limit for certain types of declarativeNetRequest rules based on data AdGuard provided on real world rule lists.

Manifest v3 is used for Chrome's extensions system. The proposal appears to limit what extensions have access to, and what they can do in Chrome. It is proposed as a W3C standard by Google. It is being tracked at the W3C at https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/44.

Google is not even close to finishing MV3: "On the userScripts API, the proposal has been merged into the WECG but the engineering work has not started yet." https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/f8f430f1904c2a6fa8...

MV2 is sticking around until at least 2024.

Some, but not all, limitations are highlighted in this thread: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/72

Somewhat tangentially, I've been pushing for a popup/overlay API that allows to specify the position and size, and doesn't require any origin permissions.

https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/307