V4 API for run(), call(), spawn()

[cowboyd]

One of the things happening in v4 is that we're aligning call() to be more similar to Function.prototype.call() This would imply that the signature for call() would be:

call(fn, thisObj, ...args)

The question is 1) is this desirable? and 2) what should we do with the other "call-like" functions in Effection: run() and spawn(). We could align them like this;

// v3
spawn(fn);
run(fn);

//v4?
spawn(fn, thisObj, ...args);
run(fn, thisObj, ...args);

On the one hand, this has a nice alignment with vanilla js, but on the other, it's annoying in that we don't really ever use this. Still, this is supposed to feel like native JS building blocks, so I'm not sure what the best way to go is.

On the other hand, I've been toying with the idea of deprecating scope.run() and replacing it by passing scope as a parameter to run() This would re-enforce the idea that this is an entry point from javascript and something you should do with care.

run(fn, { scope })

Which is better?

[iplaylf2]

it's annoying in that we don't really ever use this.

Conversely, when using NestJS and Effection together, I often need to use this, which can be quite inconvenient.

import { globalScope } from '..'

@Controller('receiver')
export class ReceiverController {
  @Inject()
  private readonly passport!: Passport
  
  @Inject()
  private readonly pushService!: PushService

  @Delete()
  public [`@Delete()`](): Promise<void> {
    return globalScope.run(function*(this: ReceiverController) {
      const receiver = yield * this.pushService.getClaimerReceiver(this.passport.id)
  
      if (null === receiver) {
        return
      }
  
      yield * this.pushService.deleteReceiver(receiver)
    }.bind(this))
  }
}

[cowboyd]

@iplaylf2 Thanks so much for your comment. This is a great data point!