The only catch is your function needs to have no side effects (other than calling RPC methods). There are a lot of systems out there that have similar restrictions.
The only catch is your function needs to have no side effects (other than calling RPC methods). There are a lot of systems out there that have similar restrictions.
I'm trying to understand how well this no-side-effects footgun is defended against.
https://github.com/cloudflare/capnweb/blob/main/src/map.ts#L... seems to indicate that if the special pre-results "record mode" call of the callback raises an error, the library silently bails out (but keeps anything already recorded, if this was a nested loop).
That catches a huge number of things like conditionals on `item.foo` in the map, but (a) it's quite conservative and will fail quite often with things like those conditionals, and (b) if I had `count += 1` in my callback, where count was defined outside the scope, now that's been incremented one extra time, and it didn't raise an error.
React Hooks had a similar problem, with a constraint that hooks couldn't be called conditionally. But they solved their DX by having a convention where every hook would start with `use`, so they could then build linters that would enforce their constraint. And if I recall, their rules-of-hooks eslint plugin was available within days of their announcement.
The problem with `map` is that there are millions of codebases that already use a method called `map`. I'd really, really love to see Cap'n Web use a different method name - perhaps something like `smartMap` or `quickMap` or `rpcMap` - that is more linter-friendly. A method name that doesn't require the linter to have access to strong typing information, to understand that you're mapping over the special RpcPromise rather than a low-level array.
Honestly, it's a really cool engineering solve, with the constraint of not having access to the AST like one has in Python. I do think that with wider adoption, people will find footguns, and I'd like this software to get a reputation for being resilient to those!
For any other function accepting a callback, the function on the server will receive an RPC stub, which, when called, makes an RPC back to the caller, calling the original version of the function.
This is usually what you want, and the semantics are entirely normal.
But for .map(), this would defeat the purpose, as it'd require an additional network round-trip to call the callback.
map() works for cases where you don't need to compute anything in the callback, you just want to pipeline the elements into another RPC, which is actually a common case with map().
If you want to filter server-side, you could still accomplish it by having the server explicitly expose a method that takes an array as input, and performs the desired filter. The server would have to know in advance exactly what filter predicates are needed.
But in the concrete:
* Looking up some additional data for each array element is a particularly common thing to want to do.
* We can support it nicely without having to create a library of operations baked into the protocol.
I really don't want to extend the protocol with a library of operations that you're allowed to perform. It seems like that library would just keep growing and add a lot of bloat and possibly security concerns.
(But note that apps can actually do so themselves. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45339577 )
I did a spiritually similar thing in JS and Dart before where we read the text of the function and re-parsed (or used mirrors in Dart) to ensure that it doesn't access any external values.
client.getAll({userIds}).map((user) => user.updatedAt == new Date().toLocaleString() ? client.photosFor(user.id) : {})
or without the conditional, client.getAll({userIds}).map((user) => client.photos({userId: user.id, since: new Date(user.updatedAt).toLocaleString()})
Like it has to call toLocaleString on the server, no?You can't perform computation on a promise. The only thing you can do is pipeline on it.
`user.updatedAt == date` is trying to compare a promise against a date. It won't type check.
`new Date(user.updatedAt)` is passing a promise to the Date constructor. It won't type check.