josh/django-language-server
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/joshuadavidthomas/django-language-server.git synced 2025-09-04 01:10:42 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

remove

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Josh Thomas 2025-08-29 22:17:04 -05:00
parent 8a63ebc3d2
commit 84f1073a1d
1 changed files with 0 additions and 77 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

77
RUFF_ARCHITECTURE_INSIGHTS.md
View file

@ -1,77 +0,0 @@
# OUTDATED - See ARCHITECTURE_INSIGHTS.md for current solution
## This document is preserved for historical context but is OUTDATED
## We found the StorageHandle solution that solves the Send+Sync issue
# Critical Discovery: The Tower-LSP vs lsp-server Architectural Mismatch
## The Real Problem
Your Ruff expert friend is correct. The fundamental issue is:
### What We Found:
1. **Salsa commit a3ffa22 uses `RefCell` and `UnsafeCell`** - These are inherently not `Sync`
2. **Tower-LSP requires `Sync`** - Because handlers take `&self` in async contexts
3. **Ruff uses `lsp-server`** - Which doesn't require `Sync` on the server struct
### The Mystery:
Your expert suggests Ruff's database IS `Send + Sync`, but our testing shows that with the same Salsa commit, the database contains:
- `RefCell<salsa::active_query::QueryStack>` (not Sync)
- `UnsafeCell<HashMap<IngredientIndex, PageIndex>>` (not Sync)
## Possible Explanations:
### Theory 1: Ruff Has Custom Patches
Ruff might have additional patches or workarounds not visible in the commit hash.
### Theory 2: Different Usage Pattern
Ruff might structure their database differently to avoid the Sync requirement entirely.
### Theory 3: lsp-server Architecture
Since Ruff uses `lsp-server` (not `tower-lsp`), they might never need the database to be Sync:
- They clone the database for background work (requires Send only)
- The main thread owns the database, background threads get clones
- No shared references across threads
## Verification Needed:
1. **Check if Ruff's database is actually Sync**:
- Look for unsafe impl Sync in their codebase
- Check if they wrap the database differently
2. **Understand lsp-server's threading model**:
- How does it handle async without requiring Sync?
- What's the message passing pattern?
## Solution Decision Matrix (Updated):
| Solution | Effort | Performance | Risk | Compatibility |
|----------|---------|------------|------|---------------|
| **Switch to lsp-server** | High | High | Medium | Perfect Ruff parity |
| **Actor Pattern** | Medium | Medium | Low | Works with tower-lsp |
| **Arc<Mutex>** | Low | Poor | Low | Works but slow |
| **Unsafe Sync wrapper** | Low | High | Very High | Dangerous |
| **Database per request** | Medium | Poor | Low | Loses memoization |
## Recommended Action Plan:
### Immediate (Today):
1. Verify that Salsa a3ffa22 truly has RefCell/UnsafeCell
2. Check if there are any Ruff-specific patches to Salsa
3. Test the actor pattern as a better alternative to Arc<Mutex>
### Short-term (This Week):
1. Implement actor pattern if Salsa can't be made Sync
2. OR investigate unsafe Sync wrapper with careful single-threaded access guarantees
### Long-term (This Month):
1. Consider migrating to lsp-server for full Ruff compatibility
2. OR contribute Sync support to Salsa upstream
## The Key Insight:
**Tower-LSP's architecture is fundamentally incompatible with Salsa's current design.**
Ruff avoided this by using `lsp-server`, which has a different threading model that doesn't require Sync on the database.