Yeah that's cool I knew something was in the pipeline, if it is ready by end of Q1 26 then I'm good
Yeah that's cool I knew something was in the pipeline, if it is ready by end of Q1 26 then I'm good 
LFYI, I didn't specify any timelines. 
1Ahh so I should expect :soontm:
1Anyone used DOs to ingest/process WebRTC streams over WebSockets? I wanna export a frame of a stream every X frames and send it off to be processed elsewhere. I know about Realtime and stuff but there're other processes that would interact with this and benefit from it being on DOs
1No changes in code in the last few days?
Nalso seeing a whole bunch of these since the 18th
YI'm using the KV api for a sqlite backed durable object, and these records don't show up in the data studio. Have we heard if this is something that will be added later?
MThis was mentioned by the devs as something they plan to support, at minimum read-only. So our voices do help show there's a desire for the functionality.
Nmy do is in ./worker/durable-objects/user-do.ts
would i put that as the script_name?
would i put that as the script_name?
1Whatever is the in your wrangler
HAssuming it is the same Worker, you don't need a script name at all
NThe class name is UserObject but how does it know where that is? Does it scan every class in every file? Also how do i make it have autocomplete when using the DO. How does typescript know what type of DO i'm working with when i get it?
HIt needs to be exported from the entrypoint of the Worker
Noh. Also for typescript i realized the binding is per class
YI think it's pretty typical that we have a durable object represent some entity like a user or a session, so we use idFromName, and then have that DO handle things for that entity.
Once I'm in the DO, however, it doesn't know the original entity id. I'm awkwardly passing in the entity id via a public init method, and then storing it in DO storage, so that when it wakes up after eviction (from a websocket message arriving or an alarm), it can "remember" its own entity id.
Are there other workarounds people are using that I'm not considering? Is there a less clunky way of the DO being aware of its own entity id? Thanks!
Once I'm in the DO, however, it doesn't know the original entity id. I'm awkwardly passing in the entity id via a public init method, and then storing it in DO storage, so that when it wakes up after eviction (from a websocket message arriving or an alarm), it can "remember" its own entity id.
Are there other workarounds people are using that I'm not considering? Is there a less clunky way of the DO being aware of its own entity id? Thanks!
HThat's generally the best you can do at the moment. If you know when a DO is created, then you could ensure you only push in the name of the DO on creation, but otherwise, it should be passed every time to ensure it has it in the event it is new
YGot it, thank you. I'll keep doing this for now then!
LI do it in a header for both HTTP and the WebSocket upgrade requests. You can't set the header for WebSockets in the browser but you can add it in the Worker fetch handler when it processes the WebSocket upgrade request. This is my utility for handling both HTTP and WebSocket DO requests: . If you use it, the DO will automatically get the headers on each request or WebSocket upgrade. You'll still have to pluck them out of the headers and stick them in storage. If you want to see how I do it, look at the source code here.
YThis is neat, thanks. I imagine this works really well if requests are always routed directly into the DO. (I've got a few other places accessing the DO, such a scheduled handler, so perhaps for me the init method is more ergonomic because it works there too)
JDoes anybody know whether a Durable Object is moved back to it's original colo after it's been "moved" to a different colo during an outage (for example)? This is in reference to what Josh Howard said in this video with Aaron Francis. I would assume it does move back to it's original colo - but it's one of those things that are annoying to test haha, so I don't know the definitive answer.
YouTube
23 seconds · Clipped by Jacob Marshall · Original video "How Durable Objects and D1 Work: A Deep Dive with Cloudflare’s Josh Howard" by Aaron Francis
NIs there a limit how far in the future an alarm is set? I want to schedule for 30d in the future if that works.
JAssuming it's still accurate, this should answer your question: https://community.cloudflare.com/t/durable-objects-alarm-limit/512367
LWhat do you mean by "scheduled handler"?
YI have a cron job (the scheduled export in the worker entrypoint) which interacts with some DOs. So in this handler, I get DO stubs using idFromName, call the init function so they know their own entity id, and then call whatever other DO methods I need. In this case it wouldn’t be as nice to reimagine this as a fetch call where I inject my own headers
LMakes sense. Using Workers RPC is more efficient. If it's possible that the first access to a DO instance comes from this cron job RPC call, then your init call is the only way I can think to handle it also. However, if you can be assured that it will always have been called before the cron job, then you might be able to use the headers approach.
CNice pattern to handle this is to have init return a RPCTarget with methods you want to be public and make everything else on the DO private. This makes it impossible to access the DO without going through your init fn
YI love that!
CYou can pipeline the init call to reduce round trips and it can work out cheaper as multiple methods invoked on same rpctarget instance is counted as single session
LAre there any footguns with that approach? For instance do such sessions timeout? Or is that a non-issue when calling from a cron Worker? Might it be if calling from another DO?
CIf using the “using” keyword it should automatically be disposed. Unsure about max or idle timeout. Good idea to have wrapper on calling side to do retries with backoff
it should automatically be disposed. Unsure about max or idle timeout. Good idea to have wrapper on calling side to do retries with backoff
LI answered this a few messages above: durable-objects
Yes, at the moment, DOs will move back to the original colo if it's healthy.
Yes, at the moment, DOs will move back to the original colo if it's healthy.
LThe only footgun is that the RpcTarget might need to be recreated if the connection breaks, but if you create a new one each time it should be OK.
JAh thanks for your response! Very helpful. For my use-case it would actually be more ideal for the DO to not hop around to be closer to the requests. I know that sounds unintuitive, but I’m building an app where the choice of location is intentional, and it may be possible that requests may come from customers from anywhere in the world - and moving the DO due to a high number of requests from a distant location would be not ideal. Happy to get in touch directly for more info 
LYeah, I doubt something like that would be released without some flag or at least some control for the users. This is mostly long-term vision.
JThat’s a relief haha. Thanks for the info!
LIf you re-create every time, do you lose the promise pipelining fewer round trips benefit?
LNot for the init() + actual call if they are pipelined.
But you can even use the same RpcTarget across requests, and followup RPCs would go straight to the target host/DO instead of the usual routing. If this matters to your app is a whole other story
But you can even use the same RpcTarget across requests, and followup RPCs would go straight to the target host/DO instead of the usual routing. If this matters to your app is a whole other story
LBut, if I understand this correctly, the problem with using the same RpcTarget across requests is that you now have a resource on the server you have to worry about being left dangling, right?
LWell, at some point it's going to be teared down since the client worker will be evicted, but yes. If you are not careful it could end up consuming resources and resetting your DO eventually, if clients holding the RpcTarget don't terminate ever.
YWe can't make fetch private though, so there would still be a way to bypass the init call for websocket upgrade requests, right? So there's at least one place we need to remember to call init or add the header, whichever method we use to pass in the entity id?
CYup using a custom header for websockets upgrade request which I then store using serializeAttachment. This way don’t have to store on a variable on the DO and it can also store other context about the web socket connection
CWe have found it’s easier to reason about if DO instance variables are only things that can be set in constructor. Otherwise it’s easy to accidentally use a instance variable which hasn’t been set like entity ID
LWhy serializeAttachment rather than storage? Isn't the information @Yoh is talking about for the entire DO instance not just one WebSocket connection?
CJust found it convenient as in our case we also use the same header to pass info that’s specific to single connection
CTying it to a websocket also removes ability to use it from non-websocket context which feels cleaner 