I have a JavaScript constructor function that I want to use to fetch some data asynchronously via Ajax first, and once that's done, call itself again to manipulate the fetched data. This basically means calling the same instance of the constructor function again, but I can't get it to work. Here is a skeleton of what I'm trying to do:
function ajaxmenu(file){
var filefetched = false
var instance = this // save reference to this instance of ajaxmenu
if (!filefetched){
$.get(file, function( data ){
$(data).appendTo(document.body)
filefetched = true
instance() // how can I call instance again to initialize menu again now that ajax file is loaded?
return
})
}
this.menu = $('#menuid') // uses jQuery
this.menu.css({width: '100px'})
//do something else fancy with $menu
}
var menu = new ajaxmenu('menu.htm')
So basically the logic I want to happen here is, when ajaxmenu() is instantiated, the portion inside ajaxmenu() that fetches some file via Ajax is called, then once that's done, the same instance of ajaxmenu() is called again, but this time with the file in place already for the reminder of the function to parse and manipulate.
How can I do this? What I have now, calling instance() returns an error.
Generally speaking, the answer to your question Can I call an initialized object again is yes! You have many options.
If you insist to use the same function again, then one option would be to
add a second parameter filefetched to ajaxmenu
you do not need the var instance = this;
pass a true when calling the ajaxmenu from itself, to skip the fetching: ajaxmenu(file, true);
Full code:
function ajaxmenu(file, filefetched){
if (!filefetched){
$.get(file, function( data ){
$(data).appendTo(document.body)
ajaxmenu(file, true);
});
}
this.menu = $('#menuid') // uses jQuery
this.menu.css({width: '100px'})
//do something else fancy with $menu
}
var menu = new ajaxmenu('menu.htm', false);
Another option (without a self-call) would be to use the callbacks that jQuery offers with the get function and do your change to the menu in the done event, that is executed once the get function completes. This way you don't need the recursive call:
function ajaxmenu(file){
$.get(file, function( data ){
$(data).appendTo(document.body)
})
.done(function() {
this.menu = $('#menuid') // uses jQuery
this.menu.css({width: '100px'})
//do something else fancy with $menu
});
}
var menu = new ajaxmenu('menu.htm');
This also simplifies the code a lot, because you don't need branches (and/or recursive calls) and it is much more readable and so better maintainable.
Generally on recursive calls: you always need a condition to stop the recursion to prevent an infinite loop. One possibility would be using a parameter that is change on every new recursive call:
function process(data, n)
{
// process data
// iterate again or stop recursion
if (n > 0)
{
process(data, n - 1);
}
// done => n = 0
}
// start
process(data, 5);
Another option would be using a global variable and track it's state, but this generally indicates a bad design and it is not recommended:
// global variable
var n = 5;
function process(data)
{
// process data
// iterate again or stop recursion
if (n > 0)
{
n = n - 1;
process(data);
}
// done => n = 0
}
// start
process(data);
Related
In terms of solving the problem, I have a fully working solution that I just finished here:
// synchronous dynamic script loading.
// takes an array of js url's to be loaded in that specific order.
// assembles an array of functions that are referenced more directly rather than
// using only nested closures. I couldn't get it going with the closures and gave up on it.
function js_load(resources, cb_done) {
var cb_list = []; // this is not space optimal but nobody gives a damn
array_each(resources, function(r, i) {
cb_list[i] = function() {
var x = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('script'));
x.src = r;
console.log("loading "+r);
x.onload = function() {
console.log("js_load: loaded "+r);
if (i === resources.length-1) {
cb_done();
} else {
cb_list[i+1]();
}
};
};
});
cb_list[0]();
}
I am completely happy with this because it does what I want now, and is probably far easier to debug than what my first approach, if it had succeeded, would have been.
But what i can't get over is why I could never get it to work.
It looked something like this.
function js_load(resources, cb_done) {
var cur_cont = cb_done;
// So this is an iterative approach that makes a nested "function stack" where
// the inner functions are hidden inside the closures.
array_each_reverse(resources, function(r) {
// the stack of callbacks must be assembled in reverse order
var tmp_f = function() {
var x = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('script'));
x.src = r;
console.log("loading "+r);
x.onload = function() { console.log("js_load: loaded "+r); cur_cont(); }; // TODO: get rid of this function creation once we know it works right
};
cur_cont = tmp_f; // Trying here to not make the function recursive. We're generating a closure with it inside. Doesn't seem to have worked :(
});
cur_cont();
}
It kept trying to call itself in an infinite loop, among other strange things, and it's really hard to identify which function a function is and what a function contains within it, during debugging.
I did not dig into the code, but it appears that jQuery.queue has also implemented a similar mechanism to my working one (using an array to track the queue of continuations) rather than using only closures.
My question is this: Is it possible to build a Javascript function that can take a function as argument, and enhance it with a list of other functions, by building closures that wrap functions it creates itself?
This is really hard to describe. But I'm sure somebody has a proper theory-backed mathematical term for it.
P.S. Referenced by the code above are these routines
// iterates through array (which as you know is a hash), via a for loop over integers
// f receives args (value, index)
function array_each(arr, f) {
var l = arr.length; // will die if you modify the array in the loop function. BEWARE
for (var i=0; i<l; ++i) {
f(arr[i], i);
}
}
function array_each_reverse(arr, f) {
var l = arr.length; // will die if you modify the array in the loop function. BEWARE
for (var i=l-1; i>=0; --i) {
f(arr[i], i);
}
}
The problem is how you were setting the value of cur_cont for every new function you made, and calling cur_cont in the onload callback. When you make a closure like tmp_f, any free variables like cur_cont are not 'frozen' to their current values. If cur_cont is changed at all, any reference to it from within tmp_f will refer to the new, updated value. As you are constantly changing cur_cont to be the new tmp_f function you have just made, the reference to the other functions are lost. Then, when cur_cont is executed and finishes, cur_cont is called again. This is exactly the same function that had just finished executing - hence the infinite loop!
In this sort of situation, where you need to keep the value of a free variable inside a closure, the easiest thing to do is to make a new function and call that with the value you want to keep. By calling this new function, a new variable is created just for that run, which will keep the value you need.
function js_load(resources, cb_done) {
var cur_cont = cb_done;
array_each_reverse(resources, function(r) {
// the stack of callbacks must be assembled in reverse order
// Make a new function, and pass the current value of the `cur_cont`
// variable to it, so we have the correct value in later executions.
// Within this function, use `done` instead of `cur_cont`;
cur_cont = (function(done) {
// Make a new function that calls `done` when it is finished, and return it.
// This function will become the new `cur_cont`.
return function() {
var x = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('script'));
x.src = r;
console.log("loading "+r);
x.onload = function() {
console.log("js_load: loaded "+r);
done();
};
};
})(cur_cont);
});
// Start executing the function chain
cur_cont();
}
EDIT: Actually, this can be made even simpler by using the Array.reduce function. Conceptually, you are taking an array and producing a single function from that array, and each successive function generated should be dependant upon the last function generated. This is the problem that reduce was designed to help solve:
function js_load(resources, done) {
var queue = resources.reduceRight(function(done, r) {
return function() {
var x = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('script'));
x.src = r;
console.log("loading "+r);
x.onload = function() {
console.log("js_load: loaded "+r);
done();
};
};
}, done);
queue();
};
Note that reduce and reduceRight are not available for older browsers (<= IE8). A JavaScript implementation can be found on the MDN page.
In following code, I am taking input
of an AJAX call into a function called
plr(). I want to detect when loading
is complete using the done variable.
But main thread is locking the
variable and the script hangs the
browser. If I put the alert in the
commented place, the purpose is
served. So, what other way can I use
to do the same?
function openX() {
LoadContentInto("Default.aspx", plr);
var obj = null;
done = false;
function plr() {
x = this.AJAXObject.responseText;
t = x.indexOf('{')
n = parseInt(x.substring(0, t));
s = x.substring(t, n + t);
p = eval('(' + s + ')');
obj = p;
done = true;
}
while (done != true)
{ // alert("hello");
}
alert(done);
}
Basically you have to make synchronous your ajax call, so there's no need to create an empty (blocking) while. the callback plr() will be executed on successful response, then remaining data will be called inside that callback
http://www.hunlock.com/blogs/Snippets:_Synchronous_AJAX
You should not wait that actively for the result. When the AJAX call is successfully finished you have the callback function called. In your case it seems that it is plr (although it is not clear what LoadContentInto exactly does).
It seems you have a temptation to make the AJAX success callback synchronous. Sometimes I used to have such passions, but so far it always showed up that there is an asynchronous way as well.
Maybe you want something like that:
function openX() {
LoadContentInto("Default.aspx", plr);
var obj = null;
var done = false; // you have your variable global! Make it local!
function plr() {
x = this.AJAXObject.responseText;
// ...
// put your code here
// ...
alert("Done!");
done = true;
}
setTimeout(function(){
if (!done) {
alert("Please wait!");
// Does the response and/or the operation after the responseText arives take a long time?
// Based on that decide how to inform the user
}
}, 100); // Set the timeout to right value.. based on your needs
}
Few comments to your code:
you have done declared as a global variable, it is very likely that it should be local
while (done != true) is much cleaner as while (!done)
I'm trying to write a function in Javascript (with jQuery, if you want):
function fetchItem(itemId) { return /* ??? */; }
This function relies on a second, predefined and unmodifyable function that looks like this:
function load(callback) { /* ... */ }
This function is asynchronous. After calling it, it fetches n items via XHR, then when they have arrived, stores them in the DOM, then invokes the callback.
fetchItem uses a simple jQuery selector (irrelevant here) to check the DOM for the element with itemId and calls load if the item isn't there yet. Rinse and repeat.
My problem is that I want to wrap multiple asynchronous calls of load into my synchronous fetchItem function, which should return the DOM element with itemId after it has made enough load calls.
Pseudo code, if load was synchronous:
function fetchItem(itemId):
while not dom.contains(itemId):
load()
return dom.find(itemId)
My first attempts at doing this in Javascript, which probably display a lot of misconceptions about Javascript's closures and execution model: ;)
function fetchItem(itemId) {
var match = undefined;
function finder() {
match = $(...).get(0);
if(!match) {
load(finder);
}
}
finder();
return match;
}
Obviously, this fails because the return is executed before the first callback. Also, as you can see I had some problems getting match back out to fetchItem. Is it properly protected by the closure here? Would this work if fetchItem was executed multiple times in parallel, assuming that load supports this (and doesn't mix up the DOM)?
I'm probably missing a perfectly good pattern here, but I don't really know what to google for...
You need to make fetchItems async too and provide it a callback, something like this should probably work (warning untested!):
function fetchItems(itemIDS, callback, matches) {
if (!matches) { // init the result list
matches = [];
}
// fetch until we got'em all
if (itemIDS.length > 0) {
var id = itemIDS[0]; // get the first id in the queue
var match = $(id).get(0);
// not found, call load again
if (!match) {
load(function() {
fetchItems(itemIDS, callback, matches);
});
// found, update results and call fetchItems again to get the next one
} else {
matches.push(match); // push the current match to the results
itemIDS.shift(); // remove the current id form the queue
fetchItems(itemIDS, callback, matches);
}
// we have all items, call the callback and supply the matches
} else {
callback(matches);
}
}
fetchItems(['#foo', '#bar', '#test'], function(matches) {
console.log(matches);
})
I would simply gave your fetchItem function as a callback to load. Like this:
function fetchItem(itemId, callback):
if not dom.contains(itemId):
load(fetchItem)
else:
callback(dom.find(itemId))
callback() is a function that does rest of the job when necessary element appears in the DOM.
That is impossible. You cannot create synchronousness from asynchronousness. Why do not you add a callback to your fetchItem-function as well?
Seems like everybody agrees that I need to introduce my own callback, so here's my (so far final) working solution:
var MAX_FETCH_MORE = 3;
/*
* Searches for itemId, loading more items up to MAX_FETCH_MORE times if necessary. When
* the item has been found or the maximum reload count has been reached, the callback
* is invoked, which is passed the DOM object of the item wrapped in a jQuery object, or
* undefined.
*/
function executeWithItem(itemId, callback, fetchCycleCounter) {
// initialize fetchCycleCounter on first iteration
if(!fetchCycleCounter) fetchCycleCounter = 0;
console.debug('iteration ' + fetchCycleCounter + '/' + MAX_FETCH_MORE);
// try to find the item in the DOM
match = $('div[data-item-id="' + itemId + '"]').get(0);
if(match) {
// if it has been found, invoke the callback, then terminate
console.debug('found: ' + match);
callback($(match));
} else if(!match && fetchCycleCounter < MAX_FETCH_MORE) {
// if it has not been found, but we may still reload, call load() and pass it
// this function as the callback
console.debug('fetching more...');
load(function() {executeWithItem(itemId, callback, fetchCycleCounter+1);});
} else {
// give up after MAX_FETCH_MORE attempts, maybe the item is gone
console.debug('giving up search');
}
}
// example invocation
executeWithItem('itemA01', function(item) {
// do stuff with it
item.fadeOut(10000);
});
Thanks to everybody for encouraging me to introduce another callback, it hasn't turned out looking so bad. :)
I have a javascript function that is being built to animate the collapse of a div, and then proceed with other jobs. The code is as follows:
function newsFeed() {
var self = this;
this.collapse = function(listingID,orig_height,curr_height,opacity) {
var listing = document.getElementById(listingID);
var reduceBy = 5;
if(curr_height > reduceBy) {
curr_height = curr_height-reduceBy;
listing.style.overflow = "hidden";
listing.style.height = (curr_height-40) + "px";
if(opacity > 0) {
opacity = opacity - 10;
var opaque = (opacity / 100);
listing.style.opacity=opaque;
listing.style.MozOpacity=opaque;
listing.style.filter='alpha(opacity='+opacity+')';
}
setTimeout(function() { self.collapse(listingID,orig_height,curr_height,opacity); },1);
}else{
return true;
}
}
this.remove = function(listingID) {
var listing = document.getElementById(listingID);
var currHeight = listing.offsetHeight;
if (this.collapse(listingID,currHeight,currHeight,100)) {
// DO SOME OTHER STUFF
}
}
}
var newsFeed = new newsFeed();
newsFeed.remove('closeMe');
I cannot get the this.remove function to wait while this.collapse finishes and returns true. Is this impossible? What is the best way to go on?
Important: I would like to be able to use this.collapse with other functions yet to be built in the same fashion as I do here.
I cannot get the this.remove function to wait while this.collapse finishes
That is correct, it is impossible to do so. In JavaScript there is a single flow of execution. When the browser calls your code you can do some processing, but for anything further to occur (timeouts or event calls) you must return control to the browser.
‘Asynchronous’ processes like collapse() are done by setting timeouts, so control must be returned to the browser many times; when remove() calls collapse() the first time it returns immediately after the first timeout is set; that timeout cannot be fired until remove() itself returns, so your 'if' code will only ever execute if the very first call to collapse() was the last frame of animation (ie. the element was 5px or smaller already). Otherwise collapse()'s ‘return true’ will just be returning true to the browser's timeout-caller, which doesn't care at all what value you return to it.
Some languages give you tools such as threads or coroutines that can allow an asynchronous routine to be run from a synchronous routine; JavaScript does not. Instead, remove() must supply collapse() with a callback function it can call itself on the last frame.
There is no way you can pause the execution in Javascript till something else happens. All you can do is attach a callback function to collapse to call after it is done executing the final step.
As a sidenote, jQuery provides functions like fade(), animate() etc and supports queuing. If you don't want to use jQuery, you can still look at the code to see how it's implemented.
See the examples in this page.
setTimeout is not a "sleep". The function will end right there and return "undefined".
To manage that, I think you should do something like:
var newsFeed = new newsFeed();
newsFeed.onaftercollapse = function () {
newsFeed.remove('closeMe'); // "newsFeed" or "self"? must test
};
And then instead of return true;, the collapse() will end with:
if (self.onaftercollapse) self.onaftercollapse();
This example demonstrates how to check if a function is complete.
function foo() {
foo.complete = false;
// your code here
foo.complete = true;
}
foo.complete = false;
if (foo.complete) { // foo execution complete
// your code here
}
This code demonstrates how to check if a function has been run once.
function foo() {
// your code here
foo.ranOnce || (foo.ranOnce = true);
}
foo.ranOnce = false;
if (foo.ranOnce) { // foo execution complete at least once
// your code here
}
This question already has answers here:
Semaphore-like queue in javascript?
(4 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I have created a Queue class in javascript and I would like to store functions as data in a queue. That way I can build up requests (function calls) and respond to them when I need to (actually executing the function).
Is there any way to store a function as data, somewhat similar to
.setTimeout("doSomething()", 1000);
except it would be
functionQueue.enqueue(doSomething());
Where it would store doSomething() as data so when I retrieve the data from the queue, the function would be executed.
I'm guessing I would have to have doSomething() in quotes -> "doSomething()" and some how make it call the function using a string, anyone know how that could be done?
All functions are actually variables, so it's actually pretty easy to store all your functions in array (by referencing them without the ()):
// Create your functions, in a variety of manners...
// (The second method is preferable, but I show the first for reference.)
function fun1() { alert("Message 1"); };
var fun2 = function() { alert("Message 2"); };
// Create an array and append your functions to them
var funqueue = [];
funqueue.push(fun1);
funqueue.push(fun2);
// Remove and execute the first function on the queue
(funqueue.shift())();
This becomes a bit more complex if you want to pass parameters to your functions, but once you've setup the framework for doing this once it becomes easy every time thereafter. Essentially what you're going to do is create a wrapper function which, when invoked, fires off a predefined function with a particular context and parameter set:
// Function wrapping code.
// fn - reference to function.
// context - what you want "this" to be.
// params - array of parameters to pass to function.
var wrapFunction = function(fn, context, params) {
return function() {
fn.apply(context, params);
};
}
Now that we've got a utility function for wrapping, let's see how it's used to create future invocations of functions:
// Create my function to be wrapped
var sayStuff = function(str) {
alert(str);
}
// Wrap the function. Make sure that the params are an array.
var fun1 = wrapFunction(sayStuff, this, ["Hello, world!"]);
var fun2 = wrapFunction(sayStuff, this, ["Goodbye, cruel world!"]);
// Create an array and append your functions to them
var funqueue = [];
funqueue.push(fun1);
funqueue.push(fun2);
// Remove and execute all items in the array
while (funqueue.length > 0) {
(funqueue.shift())();
}
This code could be improved by allowing the wrapper to either use an array or a series of arguments (but doing so would muddle up the example I'm trying to make).
Canonical answer posted here
Here is a nice Queue class you can use without the use of timeouts:
var Queue = (function(){
function Queue() {};
Queue.prototype.running = false;
Queue.prototype.queue = [];
Queue.prototype.add_function = function(callback) {
var _this = this;
//add callback to the queue
this.queue.push(function(){
var finished = callback();
if(typeof finished === "undefined" || finished) {
// if callback returns `false`, then you have to
// call `next` somewhere in the callback
_this.next();
}
});
if(!this.running) {
// if nothing is running, then start the engines!
this.next();
}
return this; // for chaining fun!
}
Queue.prototype.next = function(){
this.running = false;
//get the first element off the queue
var shift = this.queue.shift();
if(shift) {
this.running = true;
shift();
}
}
return Queue;
})();
It can be used like so:
var queue = new Queue;
queue.add_function(function(){
//start running something
});
queue.add_function(function(){
//start running something 2
});
queue.add_function(function(){
//start running something 3
});
Refer to the function you're storing without the () at the end. doSomething is a variable (that happens to be a function); doSomething() is an instruction to execute the function.
Later on, when you're using the queue, you'll want something like (functionQueue.pop())() -- that is, execute functionQueue.pop, and then execute the return value of that call to pop.
You can also use the .call() method of a function object.
function doSomething() {
alert('doSomething');
}
var funcs = new Array();
funcs['doSomething'] = doSomething;
funcs['doSomething'].call();
In addition, you can also add the function directly to the queue:
funcs['somethingElse'] = function() {
alert('somethingElse');
};
funcs['somethingElse'].call();