I looked into <https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/177#issuecomment-2686242878> the SuppressedError proposal a bit more. I'm now about 90% convinced SuppressedError does not need to be used. (Or if there is a case for it, it's in extreme edge cases that we could address after shipping.)
Given how complete every other aspect of this Intent is, LGTM1, conditional on Dominic agreeing with my reasoning that we don't want to use SuppressedError for most callbacks. If I misunderstood, then we should delay until that gets straightened out. On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 5:53 AM Jake Archibald <jaffathec...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 20:39, Dominic Farolino <d...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> https://codepen.io/jaffathecake/pen/raNWMmK?editors=0012 - it seems >>> inconsistent that two of the calls to ob.map create a new subscriber, >>> whereas the other picks up the observable half way through. >> >> >> Right, the idea that a subscription doesn't have side effects if an >> existing subscription is in-flight was essentially the outcome of >> https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/170 & >> https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/178. The alternative, where >> producer:consumer are 1:1, made it easy to write performance foot-guns >> where what you actually want is to tap into an existing stream of values >> without paying the cost of setting it up each time if it already exists. >> Many userland Observables inevitably get `share()` slapped on them >> somewhere in the chain to alleviate this, but the inconsistency made it >> hard to judge whether your subscription would have side-effects or not. We >> also saw a lot of Observable learning material was taking pains to caveat >> <https://ronnieschaniel.com/rxjs/rxjs-mastery-hot-vs-cold-observables/#:~:text=Why%20do%20we%20need%20cold%20and%20hot%20Observables%20in%20RxJS%3F> >> right >> away, this unintuitive idea that the Observable type itself doesn't >> represent anything but a stateless subscription vendor. Now it basically >> represents the producer, and I think that matches peoples' mental models >> <https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/178#issuecomment-2480525113>. >> >> I guess the rule is: A new subscriber is created if the observer has >>> closed, but isn't this really inconsistent? >> >> >> I think it is consistent though, no? It's true that it's neither "only >> one call to the subscriber" nor "each call to the initial observable >> initiates a new subscription". But it is similar to what you wrote above: a >> subscriber is invoked/spun up if its subscription is closed (not observer). >> The pay-off is that you know you're never going to have "extra" side >> effects when subscribing. At most you will spin up a single producer (which >> you're OK with since you're subscribing), and at best you will listen in on >> an existing one. >> > > I think where it gets confusing is when the observable has a beginning and > an end. It's fine for event targets, because they don't have that. > > For event target observables it's 'interested' (add the listener) and > 'distinerested' (remove the listener). Whereas the underlying events are > still continuing. > > With the example in the codepen, as the holder of the observable, I don't > think I have a way of knowing if I'm getting the start, or something in the > middle. Isn't that a bit odd? If it's ok to miss the start, why isn't it ok > to miss the end? > > Again it might be because I'm not used to the patterns, and they're well > understood elsewhere. > > >> If you need a new subscriber to be created on each subscription, you'll >> need to basically take a closure over the Observable-vending API and call >> each `subscribe()` on it, which I hope is not too burdensome. >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 2:55 PM Jake Archibald <jaffathec...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm struggling a little to get my head around how this works. >>> >>> https://codepen.io/jaffathecake/pen/raNWMmK?editors=0012 - it seems >>> inconsistent that two of the calls to ob.map create a new subscriber, >>> whereas the other picks up the observable half way through. >>> >>> If I put the .complete call in a setTimeout, then there's only one >>> subscriber created. >>> >>> I guess the rule is: A new subscriber is created if the observer has >>> closed, but isn't this really inconsistent? >>> >>> I'd expect it to be one way or the other. As in: >>> >>> There's only one call to the subscriber. >>> Or >>> Each call to the initial observable is a new subscription. >>> >>> The way it's neither one or the other is confusing to me. But maybe >>> that's totally normal for folks who are used to observables? >>> >>> On Friday, 21 February 2025 at 21:25:05 UTC Chromestatus wrote: >>> >>>> Contact emails d...@chromium.org >>>> >>>> Explainer https://github.com/WICG/observable >>>> >>>> Specification https://wicg.github.io/observable >>>> >>>> Summary >>>> >>>> Observables are a popular reactive-programming paradigm to handle an >>>> asynchronous stream of push-based events. They can be thought of as >>>> Promises but for multiple events, and aim to do what Promises did for >>>> callbacks/nesting. That is, they allow ergonomic event handling by >>>> providing an Observable object that represents the asynchronous flow of >>>> events. You can "subscribe" to this object to receive events as they come >>>> in, and call any of its operators/combinators to declaratively describe the >>>> flow of transformations through which events go. This is in contrast with >>>> the imperative version, which often requires complicated nesting with >>>> things like `addEventListener()`. For more on this, see the examples in the >>>> explainer. The big selling point for native Observables is their >>>> integration with EventTarget — its proposed `when()` method that returns an >>>> Observable which is a "better" `addEventListener()`. See >>>> https://github.com/WICG/observable and >>>> https://twitter.com/domfarolino/status/1684921351004430336. See the >>>> spec https://wicg.github.io/observable/ and the design doc: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NEobxgiQO-fTSocxJBqcOOOVZRmXcTFg9Iqrhebb7bg/edit >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> Blink component Blink>DOM >>>> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3EDOM%22> >>>> >>>> TAG review https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/902 >>>> >>>> TAG review status Issues addressed >>>> >>>> Risks >>>> >>>> >>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>> >>>> Initially we proposed adding the `.on()` method to EventTarget, which >>>> was found to conflict with userland versions of the same method. The >>>> conflict was found to be too significant to justify shipping our native >>>> version of this API (see https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/39) >>>> so we renamed it to `.when()` and we strongly believe this resolves any >>>> naming collision issues after searching through public libraries and >>>> performing developer outreach on X. See the discussion on that issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Gecko*: No signal ( >>>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/945) >>>> >>>> *WebKit*: Positive ( >>>> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/292) >>>> >>>> *Web developers*: Strongly positive ( >>>> https://twitter.com/domfarolino/status/1684921351004430336) Also see >>>> https://foolip.github.io/spec-reactions/ and the developer interest in >>>> the original WHATWG DOM issue. >>>> >>>> *Other signals*: We've gotten good design feedback from TC39 members >>>> on many issues which we have implemented accordingly. This has led to >>>> positive feedback from Node.js, and luke-warm non-negative feedback from >>>> WinterCG. See https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/93; >>>> specifically https://github.com/nodejs/standards-positions/issues/1 & >>>> https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/30 for Node, and >>>> https://github.com/wintercg/proposal-minimum-common-api/issues/72 for >>>> WinterCG. >>>> >>>> WebView application risks >>>> >>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such >>>> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >>>> >>>> None >>>> >>>> >>>> Debuggability >>>> >>>> The developer experience of Observables might benefit from >>>> Observable-specific DevTools tracking of events and streams (see >>>> https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/55). It is possible that the >>>> existing DevTools work that assists asynchronous task tracking and >>>> callstack tagging may be sufficient though. At the moment, however, our >>>> effort is focused on the platform implementation of Observables. >>>> >>>> >>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>> Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)? Yes >>>> >>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>> ? Yes >>>> >>>> See https://wpt.fyi/results/dom/observable/tentative. >>>> >>>> >>>> Flag name on about://flags observable-api >>>> >>>> Finch feature name ObservableAPI >>>> >>>> Requires code in //chrome? False >>>> >>>> Tracking bug >>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1485981 >>>> >>>> Estimated milestones >>>> Shipping on desktop 135 >>>> >>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>> >>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or >>>> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues >>>> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may >>>> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of >>>> the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >>>> Issues with the "possible future enhancement" label [1] track possible >>>> changes to the feature that may come after we ship the initial API. One >>>> issue (https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/200) is identified to >>>> have behavior changes that theoretically pose a compat risk, but only for >>>> developers that subclass the API. The behavior change proposed puts the >>>> implementation more inline with what subclass users want: the operators >>>> that return native Observable objects would instead return objects of >>>> `this.constructor` type, as to return instances of the subclass that the >>>> operators are called on. This is how JS built-ins like `Array` work, >>>> however, no other web platform feature works like this and it likely >>>> requires non-trivial Web IDL support. [1]: >>>> https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22possible%20future%20enhancement%22 >>>> >>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5154593776599040?gate=5141110901178368 >>>> >>>> Links to previous Intent discussions Intent to Prototype: >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-uykBH1%3DUoLN6%3DBRSEZE%2B1iUq6UdcTpo3qtTQ5T%3DSRxwnu5Q%40mail.gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>> <https://chromestatus.com>. >>>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAJ5xic-3d9ziBOmqHYiSGPxLmDzhu19vfbQHffqJSkprFcE%2Btg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAJ5xic-3d9ziBOmqHYiSGPxLmDzhu19vfbQHffqJSkprFcE%2Btg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM0wra8gmJhUxShvPPL%2BQn7dJ31if7%3DHMBnx7VPNyqSbT1CRwg%40mail.gmail.com.
