Skip to main content

Lettable operators in RxJs

After upgrading to Angular 5 (and having some trouble with RxJs but that is for another post), I noticed the introduction of "lettable operators", which can be accessed in rxjs/operators.

What is a lettable operator?

A lettable operator is basically any function that returns a function with the signature: <T, R>(source: Observable<T>) => Observable<R>. Euhm, what?!

Simply put, operators (like filter, map, …) are no longer tied to an Observable directly but can be used with the current let operator(explaining the name). This means you can no longer use the dot-chaining, but will have to use another way to compose your operators.

Therefore is a pipe method built into Observable now at Observable.prototype.pipe:

Why lettable operators?

Lettable operators were introduced to solve the following problems with the dot-chaining(from the documentation):

  1. Any library that imports a patch operator will augment the Observable.prototype for all consumers of that library, creating blind dependencies. If the library removes their usage, they unknowingly break everyone else. With lettables, you have to import the operators you need into each file you use them in.
  2. Operators patched directly onto the prototype are not "tree-shakeable" by tools like rollup or webpack. Lettable operators will be as they are just functions pulled in from modules directly.
  3. Unused operators that are being imported in apps cannot be detected reliably by any sort of build tooling or lint rule. That means that you might import scan, but stop using it, and it's still being added to your output bundle. With lettable operators, if you're not using it, a lint rule can pick it up for you.
  4. Functional composition is awesome. Building your own custom operators becomes much, much easier, and now they work and look just like all other operators from rxjs. You don't need to extend Observable or override lift anymore.

In short lettable operators will improve tree shaking and make it easier to create custom operators.

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...