Yeah I'm fine with the check being in there. 

> On Mar 20, 2014, at 9:52 PM, stnguyen09 <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> In Source/util/subscribeObservable.js:
> 
> > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> > +define(['knockout'], function(ko) {
> > +    'use strict';
> > +
> > +    /**
> > +     * Returns a subscription to a Knockout observable
> > +     */
> > +    var subscribeObservable = function(container, observableName, action, target, event) {
> > +        var observable = ko.getObservable(container, observableName);
> > +        if(observable === null){
> > +            return null;
> > +        }
> > +        else{
> > +            return ko.getObservable(container, observableName).subscribe(function(newValue){
> Ok yeah, that makes more sense, though I still don't see the need if we're doing a check in subscribeObservable. We're essentially using a lighter-weight check (defined(blah.blah)) to bypass a heavier check (getObservable(blah, blah) == null). I'd be more inclined to have the check in subscribeObservable() that's something along the lines of if(!object.hasProperty(propertyName)) return null;
> 
> We still have to enter subscribeObservable(), but this centralizes the check.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.