Hello!
I will briefly explain my problem:
In my use-case scenario I am sharing arrays among clients, unfortunately on each client I have to keep two copies of the same array: a "local" array created by another framework and your "y-array" used to share it. I can't get rid of the local array because it is not directly accessible, and I need your y-array to ensure consistency among clients.
The framework I am using notifies me with "update", "splice", "splices", etc. events whenever the "local" array changes, and I can change the "local" array by using methods as: "set", "push", "pop", "splice", etc.
Integrating the two implementations was not a problem, but one case is problematic. Whenever the value stored at an index of the "local" array changes and I receive an "update" event from the framework, I have to deal with a very costly operation to notify the y-array.
The "y-array" doesn't define a native "set" method. Right now I am reacting to the "update" event with a combination of ".delete(pos)" and ".insert(pos, [value])", which isn't an optimal solution, because whenever I call these two methods, the Yjs observer fires 2 events, and every single time these methods are fired I have to make many additional checks in order to prevent of entering in a loop.
If y-array had a native "set" method, I would need one single check, which would be significantly better in my use-case scenario.
Is there any reason why the "set(pos, value)" method is not defined in the y-array implementation?
Hello!
I will briefly explain my problem:
In my use-case scenario I am sharing arrays among clients, unfortunately on each client I have to keep two copies of the same array: a "local" array created by another framework and your "y-array" used to share it. I can't get rid of the local array because it is not directly accessible, and I need your y-array to ensure consistency among clients.
The framework I am using notifies me with "update", "splice", "splices", etc. events whenever the "local" array changes, and I can change the "local" array by using methods as: "set", "push", "pop", "splice", etc.
Integrating the two implementations was not a problem, but one case is problematic. Whenever the value stored at an index of the "local" array changes and I receive an "update" event from the framework, I have to deal with a very costly operation to notify the y-array.
The "y-array" doesn't define a native "set" method. Right now I am reacting to the "update" event with a combination of ".delete(pos)" and ".insert(pos, [value])", which isn't an optimal solution, because whenever I call these two methods, the Yjs observer fires 2 events, and every single time these methods are fired I have to make many additional checks in order to prevent of entering in a loop.
If y-array had a native "set" method, I would need one single check, which would be significantly better in my use-case scenario.
Is there any reason why the "set(pos, value)" method is not defined in the y-array implementation?