An update on Object.observe

Over three years ago, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, and I set out to design and implement what we believed to be the primitive underlying the data-binding system of MDV ("model-driven views"). We prototyped an implementation in a branch of V8, then got agreement from the V8 team to build a

Re: An update on Object.observe

Hi Adam, Just sharing my $0.02 : I implemented a two-way binding system in my first JavaScript framework at Apple in 2007, designed as a layer on top of a property change observing API, like in Cocoa, and that’s still our design in Montage today. I’ve never felt the need nor understood why

Re: An update on Object.observe

> Over three years ago, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, and I set out to > design and implement what we believed to be the primitive underlying the > data-binding system of MDV ("model-driven views"). We prototyped an > implementation in a branch of V8, then got agreement from the V8 team to >

Re: An update on Object.observe

Regarding the Polymer 1.0 situation, as a client the new system seems to be simpler. The core aspect is that now when you modify a property, the resulting changes propagate instantly. O.o required update callbacks to be executed on a new microtask after the associated field/item was modified. In

Re: An update on Object.observe

Agreed, another aspect that I never understood, and was a problem with Angular 1.0 bindings. At least when doing it in-line, bindings don’t introduce a new flow compared to what a developer’s custom equivalent code would do. Benoit > On Nov 2, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Brian Chin

Re: An update on Object.observe

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Matthew Phillips wrote: > > Over three years ago, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, and I set out to >> design and implement what we believed to be the primitive underlying the >> data-binding system of MDV ("model-driven views"). We

Re: An update on Object.observe

I agree with Benoit and I think there is a reason `Object.prototype.watch` is still in Firefox and won't go away any time soon, as well as I think there is a reason everyone would like to play with Proxies instead, but regardless in ES2015 these are still basically nowhere. Debouncing some

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 105, Issue 2

Being a one of those humble ~0.017% of consumers of O.o, I'd like, too, to raise a vote against the removal of the feature. Having implemented my own 2 way binding library utilizing O.o from one and MutationObserver from another side, I must say that it is very very convenient facility, regardless

Re: Save Object.observe()! (please) + make WeakMap/WeakSet observable.

Not sure I've got your idea right but I think the main point of WeakAnything is to forget about GC and have them **not** observable "at all costs" unless I've misunderstood the intent itself, Object.observe as it has been proposed wouldn't help much anyway. Regards On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at

Save Object.observe()! (please) + make WeakMap/WeakSet observable.

I was referred to es-discuss after filing a feature request here to support observing WeakMaps and WeakSets. ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1206584 ) I was linked this message: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2015-November/044684.html Please save Object.observe().

Re: Re: An update on Object.observe

To be clear, I'm neither for nor against this (I do not fully know the use-cases or caveats of Object.observe). However, short timelines are an easy way to cause deep pain in the node ecosystem. ~Jeremiah ___ es-discuss mailing list

Re: An update on Object.observe

On 11/2/15 4:55 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: I agree with Benoit and I think there is a reason `Object.prototype.watch` is still in Firefox and won't go away any time soon As far as I know the only reason it's there and hasn't been removed is because it's used to implement debugger

Re: Save Object.observe()! (please) + make WeakMap/WeakSet observable.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not sure I've got your idea right but I think the main point of > WeakAnything is to forget about GC and have them **not** observable "at all > costs" > That is true of WeakMap and WeakSet. But there is a