Clarify the default values for newly created LiveMap and LiveCounter by sacOO7 · Pull Request #478 · ably/specification

sacOO7 · 2026-05-19T12:38:42Z

Based on Clarify the default values for newly created LiveMap and LiveCounter in RTLM4 and RTLC4 #361
Remove the term "zero-value" object as it is an unnecessary detail that simply describes a newly created object according to RTLM4 and RTLC4

sacOO7 · 2026-05-19T12:41:58Z

I had a question

We already have zero-value references in the codebase ( both ably-js and ably-java AFAIK), so do we want to keep existing terminology or adapt to new one?
If we adapt to new one ( default value or a new object ), do we also need to update relevant references in all codebases. If we keep implementation spec-agnostic, then it will differ across SDKs for zero-value objects
Maybe replacing zero-value object with empty object would make more sense?

sacOO7 · 2026-05-19T14:19:23Z

I had a question

We already have zero-value references in the codebase ( both ably-js and ably-java AFAIK), so do we want to keep existing terminology or adapt to new one?

If we adapt to new one ( default value or a new object ), do we also need to update relevant references in all codebases. If we keep implementation spec-agnostic, then it will differ across SDKs for zero-value objects

Maybe replacing zero-value object with empty object would make more sense?

Validated all public facing liveobject docs for zero-value, zero value terminology

We found =>

The "zero-value" terminology is purely a spec-internal artefact that was never surfaced in public-facing documentation. The docs already use the user-friendly phrasings ("empty map", "initial value 0", "newly created object", "initial state") that the spec PR is migrating toward, so the public surface is already coherent with the new wording.

ZERO_VALUE_LIVEOBJECTS_REVIEW.md

sacOO7 · 2026-05-20T09:51:06Z

Updated PR as per discussion here -> 286024e

lawrence-forooghian · 2026-05-20T12:31:43Z

  - `(RTO4b)` If the `HAS_OBJECTS` flag is 0 or there is no `flags` field, the sync sequence must be considered complete immediately, and the client library must perform the following actions in order:
    - `(RTO4b1)` All objects except the one with id `root` must be removed from the internal `ObjectsPool`
-    - `(RTO4b2)` The data for the `LiveMap` with id `root` must be cleared by setting it to a zero-value per [RTLM4](#RTLM4). Note that the client SDK must not create a new `LiveMap` instance with id `root`; it must only clear the internal data of the existing `LiveMap` with id `root`
+    - `(RTO4b2)` The data for the `LiveMap` with id `root` must be cleared by setting it to an empty map per [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c). Note that the client SDK must not create a new `LiveMap` instance with id `root`; it must only clear the internal data of the existing `LiveMap` with id `root`


Suggested change

- `(RTO4b2)` The data for the `LiveMap` with id `root` must be cleared by setting it to an empty map per [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c). Note that the client SDK must not create a new `LiveMap` instance with id `root`; it must only clear the internal data of the existing `LiveMap` with id `root`

- `(RTO4b2)` The data for the `LiveMap` with id `root` must be cleared by setting it to the value described in [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c). Note that the client SDK must not create a new `LiveMap` instance with id `root`; it must only clear the internal data of the existing `LiveMap` with id `root`

We don't really set any value as per RTLM4c. Being explicit, we clear/get rid of all values from the map.
Do you think wording gets misleading here?

RTLM4c describes a particular value for data (i.e. an empty map); we're saying to set it to that value

again as mentioned in the other comment we can even lose the word "clear"

Addressed, removed cleared keyword d0de4ca

lawrence-forooghian · 2026-05-20T12:32:15Z

      - `(RTLO4e3b)` This clause has been replaced by [RTLO6b](#RTLO6b)
        - `(RTLO4e3b1)` This clause has been replaced by [RTLO6b1](#RTLO6b1)
-    - `(RTLO4e4)` Set the data for the `LiveObject` to a zero-value, as described in [RTLC4](#RTLC4) or [RTLM4](#RTLM4) depending on the object type
+    - `(RTLO4e4)` Clear the internal data of the `LiveObject` as described in [RTLC4b](#RTLC4b) or [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c), depending on the object type


Suggested change

- `(RTLO4e4)` Clear the internal data of the `LiveObject` as described in [RTLC4b](#RTLC4b) or [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c), depending on the object type

- `(RTLO4e4)` Clear the internal data of the `LiveObject` by setting it to the value described in [RTLC4b](#RTLC4b) or [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c), depending on the object type

We don't really set any value for either LiveMap or LiveCounter, don't you think it's a bit misleading to say setting it to the value wdyt?

What do you mean "we don't really set any value" — isn't this spec point saying that you should set the LiveObject's data property to a specific value?

It could even just lose the word "clear" and say

- `(RTLO4e4)` Set the `data` attribute of the `LiveObject` to the value described in [RTLC4b](#RTLC4b) or [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c), depending on the object type

Updated d0de4ca

lawrence-forooghian · 2026-05-20T12:33:29Z

@sacOO7 just a couple of minor comments, and please could you squash commits before merge?

…in RTLM4 and RTLC4 Also remove the term "zero-value" object as it is an unnecessary detail that simply describes a newly created object according to RTLM4 and RTLC4

sacOO7 · 2026-05-20T19:03:42Z

@sacOO7 just a couple of minor comments, and please could you squash commits before merge?

Fixed d0de4ca

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to staging/pull/478 May 19, 2026 12:39 Inactive

sacOO7 mentioned this pull request May 19, 2026

Clarify the default values for newly created LiveMap and LiveCounter in RTLM4 and RTLC4 #361

Closed

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to staging/pull/478 May 20, 2026 09:47 Inactive

sacOO7 requested review from VeskeR, lawrence-forooghian and ttypic May 20, 2026 09:50

lawrence-forooghian reviewed May 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot temporarily deployed to staging/pull/478 May 20, 2026 19:02 Inactive

sacOO7 added 3 commits May 21, 2026 00:32

Clarify the default values for newly created LiveMap and LiveCounter …

d36545a

…in RTLM4 and RTLC4 Also remove the term "zero-value" object as it is an unnecessary detail that simply describes a newly created object according to RTLM4 and RTLC4

Updated zero-value LiveMap and LiveCounter as per discussion

84a254d

Updated liveobject spec points to set LiveMap and LiveCounter values

d0de4ca

sacOO7 force-pushed the clarify-zero-value-objects-v2 branch from 9881332 to d0de4ca Compare May 20, 2026 19:02

github-actions Bot deployed to staging/pull/478 May 20, 2026 19:03 View deployment

sacOO7 requested a review from lawrence-forooghian May 20, 2026 19:03

	- `(RTO4b2)` The data for the `LiveMap` with id `root` must be cleared by setting it to an empty map per [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c). Note that the client SDK must not create a new `LiveMap` instance with id `root`; it must only clear the internal data of the existing `LiveMap` with id `root`
	- `(RTO4b2)` The data for the `LiveMap` with id `root` must be cleared by setting it to the value described in [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c). Note that the client SDK must not create a new `LiveMap` instance with id `root`; it must only clear the internal data of the existing `LiveMap` with id `root`

	- `(RTLO4e4)` Clear the internal data of the `LiveObject` as described in [RTLC4b](#RTLC4b) or [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c), depending on the object type
	- `(RTLO4e4)` Clear the internal data of the `LiveObject` by setting it to the value described in [RTLC4b](#RTLC4b) or [RTLM4c](#RTLM4c), depending on the object type

Conversation

sacOO7 commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

sacOO7 commented May 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sacOO7 commented May 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sacOO7 commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

lawrence-forooghian May 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sacOO7 May 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lawrence-forooghian May 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lawrence-forooghian May 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sacOO7 May 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lawrence-forooghian May 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sacOO7 May 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lawrence-forooghian May 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lawrence-forooghian May 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sacOO7 May 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lawrence-forooghian commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

sacOO7 commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

sacOO7 commented May 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

sacOO7 commented May 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

lawrence-forooghian May 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

sacOO7 May 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

sacOO7 May 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading