Modifies pipe to pass along highland errors

[LewisJEllis]

Discussions on 3.0.0 have mentioned #166 a few times, so here it is on the 3.0.0 branch.

[jeromew]

@LewisJEllis can you explain the status on this ? I understand that this would be a breaking change in 2.x so this is a '3.0.0 potential' ?

[LewisJEllis]

Yes; it's not a huge behavior change, but there definitely might be uses that this would break.

I consider it ready to merge, but there haven't been any comments on the matter since the discussion in #136, so I've left it open.

[ibash]

Anyway we can get this backported to 2? I saw the discussion in #166 but I still think it's wrong expectation and at worse awkward that connecting two highland streams via pipe does not propagate errors.

[LewisJEllis]

I agree it's silly, but simple of a change as it is, it strictly speaking is a non-BC as far as semver is concerned. I don't think we should merge it on 2.x, but there could be other options.

[ibash]

Grumble, fair enough, might make a utility to do it then.

-- 
Islam Sharabash
islam.sharabash@gmail.com
217-377-9657

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Lewis J Ellis notifications@github.com
wrote:

I agree it's silly, but simple of a change as it is, it strictly speaking is a non-BC as far as semver is concerned. I don't think we should merge it on 2.x, but there could be other options.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#191 (comment)

[svozza]

I agree it's not ideal but with the fix gone into through there's really no reason to ever use pipe to join two Highland streams.

[ibash]

@svozza use case is I want to pass a stream to a function and have it write to it.
e.g.

stream = _() ...;

writeDataToStream(stream);

Inside of writeDataToStream it needs to do something like:

function writeDataToStream(stream) {
  stream2 = ...;

  stream2.pipe(stream);
}

Is there a better way to do that?

[vqvu]

The point of streams is that you can construct the stream objects synchronously even if the data source isn't. What specifically requires you to ever write a writeDataToStream function?

Why can't you do this?

function getDataAsStream() {
    var stream2 = ...;
    return stream2;
}

// Same ... used in your example above to construct the stream
var stream = getDataAsStream() ...;

Edit: Re-ordered sentences for clarity.

[ibash]

You're right -- should be able to do that. Was just thinking about it as:

1. Build a pipeline
2. Push data down the pipeline

But it makes just as much sense as

1. Get your datasource
2. Build a pipeline

[vqvu]

OK. Since we have #240 now, and we seem to have consensus, I'll go ahead and close this as unnecessary.

[LewisJEllis]

@vqvu you originally closed this as unnecessary thanks to #240, and I just trusted your judgment, but @svozza still wants it as per recent discussion on #179. I'm not sure what the situation is but maybe you guys could discuss whether this is necessary?