Stephen Belanger

Strange. Not sure where that review request came from. I guess it auto-triggered somehow when I force pushed master to fix the recent accidental merge? 🤔

I've fixed this in the `node` stackable. It does not apply to the others as they all either have no server entrypoint that we support and/or don't maintain context to...

If we detach the scoping mechanism from the setting mechanism, as I have described in other previous conversations about AsyncContext, we would not have this problem. ```js const a =...

You can avoid that issue by just wrapping the calls in more scopes, if you _want_ to contain their changes. It's somewhat _correct_ that linear code like that would behave...

Just for context, in Node.js this is [`store.exit(() => {})`](https://nodejs.org/api/async_context.html#asynclocalstorageexitcallback-args).

Ah, right. Profiler is using those channels to build their code hotspots linkage to trace info. We'll need to coordinate with them to switch that to their own separate use...

Basically you just need to replace your use of `dd-trace:storage:before` and `dd-trace:storage:after` channels to use the async_hooks `before` and `after` events.

That's pretty much how I had originally thought async context in the spec should work, but some people were really against the idea of dynamic variable scoping and pushed hard...

Yep, not saying otherwise, just sharing that there was some prior art in this area that never really went anywhere as there were some strong voices that pushed back against...

I actually see _a lot_ of benefit to it, if we do it _right_. There needs to be a way to match companies which want to put money into development...