You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Code to reproduce: No bug to reproduce, just a question.
Expected behavior:
Actual behavior:
Additional information:
On Line 122 of WebSocketSubject it says "// TODO: factor this out to be a proper Operator/Subscriber implementation and eliminate closures"
Honestly, at this point we can probably remove that TODO. I initially added that comment because there was a huge performance difference in Chrome/V8 between code that used a lot of closures and code that did not. Since then the gap there has tightened enough to where I'm less worried about it.
Thanks for responding @benlesh. If someone were to further build out this WebSocketSubject multiplex functionality with more features like the ability for the consumer to send or configurable auto-retry (Likely not belonging in the core rxjs repo, but I’m open to anything), can you opine what your ideal approach would be?
Maybe I’d create an operator that returns a multicasted subject? (Multicasted so that multiple downstream subscribers don’t trigger repeated subscription msgs as the current one does)
RxJS version: 5.4.2
Code to reproduce: No bug to reproduce, just a question.
Expected behavior:
Actual behavior:
Additional information:
On Line 122 of WebSocketSubject it says "// TODO: factor this out to be a proper Operator/Subscriber implementation and eliminate closures"
Can one of the maintainers please explain a little more clearly what's the suggested improvement and the benefits it would bring? I'd love to contribute, but am a little confused what we're looking for.
I've noticed @benlesh authored https://github.com/benlesh/RxSocketSubject/blob/master/test/RxSocketSubject/multiplex.js awhile back for RxJS 4, are we looking to take a similar approach here as well?
Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: