asyncawait | Callback heaven for Nodejs with async/await | Reactive Programming library

According to this comment by TysonMN, the following in your .csproj file will embed both PDB symbols and associated source code into .nuget, such that VS can find them:

You have exported both the initial component and the connected one. And you have probably imported the initial component because the setAlert prop is not available (not connected).

You need to change your import from "named":

OnMessage is a synchronous event which fires as soon as it receives a message, it doesn't have an async alternative callback.

If you want to handle the messages asynchronously you can decouple the producer from its consumers which can do using a BlockingCollection where you can the SSE Client capturing messages as soon as they're sent, e.g:

catch doesn't expect a function, it's just a special syntax to detect the error:

I changed to stable channel which fixed the issue.

https://flutter.dev/docs/development/tools/sdk/upgrading#switching-flutter-channels

flutter channel stable

flutter upgrade

I posted this on the Trio chat and Nathaniel J. Smith, the creator of Trio, replied with this:

Trio doesn't maintain a buffer "under the hood", no. There's just the kernel's send buffer, but the kernel will apply backpressure whether you want it to or not, so that doesn't help you.

Using a background writer task + an unbounded memory channel is basically what asyncio does for you implicitly.

The other option, if you're putting together a message in multiple pieces and then want to send it when you're done would be to append them into a bytearray and then call send_all once at the end, at the same place where you'd call drain in asyncio

(but obviously that only works if you're calling drain after every logical message; if you're just calling write and letting asyncio drain it in the background then that doesn't help)

So the question was based on a misconception: I wanted to write into Trio's hidden send buffer, but no such thing exists! Using a separate coroutine that waits on a stream and calls send_all() makes more sense than I had thought.

I ended up using a hybrid of the two ideas (using separate coroutine with a memory channel vs using bytearray): save the data to a bytearray, then use a condition variable to signal to the other coroutine that it's ready to be written. That lets me coalesce writes, and also manually check if the buffer's getting too large.

All right, I solved my problem by awaiting an AsyncAutoResetEvent after launching the activity:

An event is defined as well as a handshake value:

Changing the method signature to async Task only does not include any performance cost, since it only enables await feature (async enables awaiting inside method and Task anables awaiting such a method from outside).

So both of your methods, when returning false, have the same performance impact.

First, it's important to note that either way, the code is asynchronous.

That said, I generally recommend people to start with async/await everywhere and then only elide the keywords in trivial cases. There are several caveats when eliding async and await, including exceptions and using statements. So as a general rule, if the implementation is truly trivial (literally just "forward to another method"), then feel free to elide async/await; everywhere else, keep the async/await keywords. They have minimal overhead and guarantee correct semantics for nontrivial methods.