I'd like to have a chain of filters (mostly in cases of errors) which are called sequentially and are given the xhrObject, so that each filter function can decide what to do based on the specific fault. There should also be a mechanism for passing along the data to the next filter function, or stopping the chain at some point.
I know that the Deferred objects in jQuery allow something like that, but I don't really see a way to declare one global xhrObject, to which these filter callbacks will hook up at the very beginning, so that they are handling any response/fault. Besides, having one global service delegate is not good either, because it may make the app go out of sync if the users perform many operations, while the previous ones haven't finished yet.
Besides, having one global service delegate is not good either,
because it may make the app go out of sync if the users perform many
operations, while the previous ones haven't finished yet.
AJAX, by its nature, is asynchronous. You should program accordingly. There is nothing wrong with a single delegation AJAX function.
I'd like to have a chain of filters
I think you need to explain this portion a little more clearly.
Related
This is a question about performance more than anything else.
Node exposes three different types of methods to accomplish various filesystem tasks:
Promises API (async)
Callback API (async)
Synchronous API (sync)
I've read more articles and stackoverflow answers than I can count, all of which claiming to never need the sync methods.
I recently wrote a script which required a couple directories to be made if they didn't already exist. During this, I noticed that if I used the async/await methods (primarily fs.promises.mkdir and fs.promises.access), the event loop would simply continue to the next async bit of code, regardless of the fact that the next bits require those directories. This is expected behavior, after all, it's async.
I understand this could be solved with a nice little callback hell sesh, but that isn't the question, whereas the idea that the promises api can be used over all other methods is.
The question then becomes:
Is it ever better to use Node's filesystem sync methods over the same async methods?
Is it ever truly required in situations like this to block the process?
Or said differently:
Is it possible to completely avoid sync methods and ONLY use the promises api (NOT promises + callbacks)?
It seems like using the sync methods (given my situation above, where the directories are required to be there before any other call is made) can be EXTREMELY useful to write readable, clear code, even though it may negatively impact performance.
With that being said, there's an overwhelming level of information to say that the sync api is completely useless and never required.
Again, this purely caters to the promises api. Yes, callbacks and promises are both async, but the difference between the job and message queues makes the both api's completely different in this context.
PS: For additonal context on examples, I've provided a code sample so you don't have to imagine my example ;)
Thanks! :)
// Checks if dir exists, if not, creates it. (not the actual code, just an example)
// Sync version
if (!fs.existsSync(dirPath)) {
fs.mkdirSync(dirPath);
}
// Async version
try {
await fs.promises.access(dirPath);
} catch {
await fs.promises.mkdir(dirPath);
}
It depends on the situation. The main benefit of the sync methods is that they allow for easier consumption of their results, and the main disadvantage is that they prevent all other code from executing while working.
If you find yourself in a situation where other code not being able to respond to events is not an issue, you might consider it to be reasonable to use the sync methods - if the code in question has no chance of or reason for running in parallel with anything else.
For example, you would definitely not want to use the sync methods inside, say, a server handling a request.
If your code requires reading some configuration files (or creating some folders) when the script first runs, and there aren't enough of them such that parallelism would be a benefit, you can consider using the sync methods.
That said, even if your current implementation doesn't require parallelism, something to keep in mind is that, if the situation changes and you find that you do actually need to allow for parallel processing, you won't have to make any changes to your existing code if you had started out by using the promise-based methods in the first place - and if you understand the language, using the Promises properly should be pretty easy, so if there's a chance of that, you might consider using the Promises anyway.
Is it wrong to make multiple ajax simultaneously requests to different endpoints of a REST API that end up modifying the same resource?
Note: each endpoint will modify different properties.
For example, let's assume that one endpoint modifies some properties for an order, like order_date and amount and another endpoint set's the link between the same order and a customer by changing the customer_id value from the orders table (I know that maybe this is not the best example, all these updates can be done with one endpoint).
Thanks in advance!
This is totally a requirements based question. It is generally a bad idea to have a single resource be changed by multiple processes, but this ONLY matters if there is a consistency relationship between the data. Consider some of the following questions:
If one or more of the AJAX calls fails does will that break your application? If it will, then yes, this is a bad idea. Will your application carry on regardless of what data you have at any given time? If so, then no this doesn't matter.
Take some time to figure out what dependencies you have between your data calls and you will get your answer.
what you are describing is not a shared resource even if it is stored in the same object because you are modifying different properties however take great care when using same object. if your requests to the server depends on the properties that are modified by the other request.
in general its not a good idea to use the same object to store data that is modified by more than one asynchronous function even if the properties are different. it makes your code confusing and harder to maintain since you have to manually coordinate your function calls to prevent race condition.
there are better ways to manage your asynchronous code using Promises or Observables
It's a bad idea in general. But if your code is small and you can manage it then you can do it though its not recommended.
In the long run, it will cause you many problems confusion, maintaining code, consistency etc.
And if in any case another developer has to manage your code, It will be more confusing and tough for him.
In programming always keep things flexible and think in long run. Your requirements can change in future , what will you do then? write the whole program again? This is one thing , you also want to avoid.
I am attempting to create a library to make API calls to a web application (jira, if you care to know) I have my api calls working no problem, but I am looking to make the code a bit more readable and use-able. I have tried searching for my needs, but it turns out I am not sure what I need to be searching for.
I am having an issue with Asynchronous calls that depend on each other, I understand that I have to wait until the callback is ran to run my next item, but I am not sure of the best way to design this.
I really would like to make Chaining a feature of my api, which I would hope to look like this:
createProject(jsonProjectStuff)
.setLeadUser("myusername")
.createBoard("boardName")
.setBoardPermissions(boardPermissionJSONvar)
.addRole(personRoleJSONvar);
with this example, everything would have to wait on the createProject as it will return the project. createBoard doesn't rely on the project normally, but used in this context it should be "assigned" to the project made, setting the board permissions only relies on the createBoard to work. addRole is specific to the project again.
the questions I have are:
Is this possible to switch context like this and keep data in-between them without the need to run the function from the response hard coded?
If this is possible, is this a good idea? If not I am open to other schemes.
I can think of a couple ways to make it work, including registering the function calls with a dependency tree and then fulfilling promises as we go, although that is mostly conceptual for me at this point as I am trying to decide the best.
Edit 2/19/2016
So I have looked into this more and I have decided on a selective "then" only when it creating a new item doesn't relate directly to the parent.
//Numbers are ID, string is Name
copyProject(IDorName)
.setRoles(JSONItem)
.setOwner("Project.Owner")
.setDefaultEmail("noreply#fake.com")
.then(
copyBoard(IDorName)
.setName("Blah blah Name {project.key}"),
saveFilterAs(IDorName, "Board {project.key}",
"project = {project.key} ORDER BY Rank ASC")
.setFilterPermissions({shareValuesJSON})
)
I like this solution a lot, the only thing I am unsure of how to do is the string "variables", I suppose it could be "Blah blah Name " + this.project.key
either way I am unsure of how to give copyBoard or saveFilterAs access to it via the "then" function.
Any thoughts?
I've been using Nightmare (a headless browser) lately.
It has a fluent API that uses a nice design pattern.
Calling the API doesn't directly execute the actions, it only queues them and when you are ready to execute you must call the end function which returns a promise. The promise is resolved when the queue has completed its async execution.
For example, in your situation
createProject(jsonProjectStuff)
.setLeadUser("myusername")
.createBoard("boardName")
.setBoardPermissions(boardPermissionJSONvar)
.addRole(personRoleJSONvar)
.end() // Execute the queue of operations.
.then() => {
// All operations completed.
))
.catch(err => {
// An error occurred.
});
I feel like this pattern is quite elegant. It allows you to have a fluent API to build a sequence of actions. Then when you are ready to execute said operations you call end (or whatever). The sequence of operations are then completed asynchronously and you use the promise to handle completion and errors.
I'm trying to create a loader that tracks when AJAX calls start and end. It's using JSONP so the .ajaxComplete() doesn't work / isn't reliable.
Ideally I'd like to modify getJSON so that every time it is called a function, addAJAX(), is also called. The callback will also fire a function removeAJAX().
Currently I'm having to do this by adding in functions to every getJSON, of which there are many and likely to be many more.
For example:
// Add ajax tracker
hl.addAJAX();
$.getJSON('someurl.com?callback=?',{ key: APIKEY }, function(json) {
// Remove the ajax tracker
hl.removeAJAX();
});
Creating a wrapper function for AJAX calls is one option, but I'd really like to know if jQuery can be modified this way?
Yes you can override jQuery to do such actions. I have posted one answer for a similar type question. So Instead of re-posting, providing the reference -
How to get default error of ajax call
Technically it certainly could be done -- jQuery is just JavaScript, so you could dig through the sources .js files, find the method in question and modify to your heart's content. However, this certainly isn't a trivial edit and I would strongly advise you against modifying core functionality of third party libraries unless you think that there's no other feasible option and you're ready for what comes along with it.
I say that because that will mean, among other things, that you'll have to maintain those changes when you're trying to move to future versions, and that you may break support for other libraries or plugins which expect certain functions to work certain ways.
As much as it may be annoying to call the function in the callback every time, that's the recommended way of accomplishing this type of functionality.
I have a web application based on apache. php, js and jquery. All works fine.
On the client side there is a small library in JS/jquery, offering some generic list handling methods. In the past I used callbacks to handle those few issues where those methods had to behave slightly different. That way I can reuse methods like list handling, dialog handling and stuff for different part of the application. However recently the number of callbacks I had to hand through when stepping into the library grew and I am trying a redesign:
Instead of specifying all callbacks as function arguments I created a central catalog object in the library. Each module of the application registers its own variant of callbacks into that catalog upon initialization. At runtime the methods lookup the required callbacks in that catalog instead of expecting it specified in their list of arguments. This cleans up things quite a lot.
However I have one thing I still cannot get rid of: I require a single argument (I call it context, mode might be another term) that is used by the methods to lookup the required callback in the catalog. This context has to be handed through to all methods. Certainly better than all sorts of different callbacks being specified everywhere, but I wonder if I can get rid of that last one to.
But where do I specify that context, if not as method argument ? I am pretty new to JS and jquery, so I failed to find an approach for this. Apparently I don't want to use global vars, and to be frank I doubt that I can simply store a context in a single variable anyway, since because of all the event handlers and external influences methods might be called in different contexts at the same time, or at least interleaving. So I guess I need something closer to a function stack. Maybe I can simply push a context object to the stack and read that from within the layers of the library that need to know ? The object would be removed when I leave the library again. Certainly other approaches exist too.
Here are so many experienced coders how certainly can give a newbie like a short hint, a starting point that leads to an idea, how to implement this. How is such thing 'usually' done ?
I tried round a while, exploring the arguments.callee.caller hierarchy. I thought maybe I could set a prototype member inside a calling function, then, when execution steps further down I could simply traverse the call stack upwards until I find a caller holding such property and use that value as context.
However I also saw the ongoing discussions that reveal two things: 1.) arguments.callee appears to be depreciated and 2.) it appears to be really expensive. So that is a no go.
I also read about the Function.caller alternative (which appears not to be depreciated and much more efficient, however until now I failed to explore that trail...
As written currently passing the context/mode down simply works by specifying an additional argument in the function calls. It carries a unique string that is used as a key when consulting the catalog. So something like this (not copied, but written as primitive example):
<!-- callbacks -->
callback_inner_task_base:function(arg1,arg2){
// do something with args
}
callback_inner_task_spec:function(arg1,arg2){
// do something with args
}
<!-- catalog -->
Catalog.Callback:function(context,slot){
// some plausibility checks...
return Catalog[context][slot];
}
Catalog.base.slot=callback_inner_task_base;
Catalog.spec.slot=callback_inner_task_spec;
<!-- callee -->
do_something:function(arg1,arg2,context){
...
// callback as taken from the catalog
Catalog.Callback(callback,'inner_task')(arg1,arg2);
...
}
<!-- caller -->
init:function(...){
...
do_something('thing-1',thing-2','base');
do_something('thing-1',thing-2','spec');
...
}
But where do I specify that context, if not as method argument ?
Use a function property, such as Catalog.Callback.context
Use a monad