How could you create

sharedFlow

builder with the same signature like the cold

flow

builder:

fun<T> sharedFlow(block: suspend FlowCollector<T>): SharedFlow<T>

? It always requires a

CoroutineScope

...

what would it mean to create a shared flow without a scope? if it didn't, and you ran

sharedFlow.collect() // in scope 1
sharedFlow.collect() // in scope 2 in parallel

then cancelled one of the scopes, in what scope should the single shared producer be running?

I don't understand your problem. Currently, you could do this:

fun<T> sharedFlow(block: MutableSharedFlow<T>.() -> Unit): SharedFlow<T> = MutableSharedFlow<Int>().apply(block)

val sf = sharedFlow {
    tryEmit(42)
}

But would like to use

emit

(and FlowCollector) instead.

if

sf

were a plain

flow

, then

tryEmit

runs as a child within the scope of each collector

Oh, after canceling the first collector, the SharedFlow should still emit the values, no matter how many collectors are actually subscribing.

so… how would that even work? you can't re-parent the running coroutine

I want to have one SharedFlow acting as producer and multiple consumer... But yeah, after reading it again, the producer needs its own scope to run independently.

@hfhbd you looking for produce { } ?

Not really, produce returns a channel, I want to get a

SharedFlow

.

Why do you want to get a

SharedFlow

?

Because I want to migrate from BroadcastChannel to ShareFlow.

What is your code trying to do?

It listens a hot event source and should broadcast these values to each subscriber, if present.

Yes, you can do produce { ... }.receiveAsFlow()

Yeah, but why? I am currently using

broadcast

and want to migrate it to SharedFlow. Why should I use

produce

?

Why do you want to migrate to SharedFlow if produce does what you want? I could help you better if you could share your code piece🙂