Imagine we have to sources to be requested by ajax. I want to perform some actions when all callbacks are triggered. How this can be done besides this approach:
(function($){
var sources = ['http://source1.com', 'http://source2.com'],
guard = 0,
someHandler = function() {
if (guard != sources.length) { return; }
//do some actions
};
for (var idx in sources) {
$.getJSON(sources[idx], function(){ guard++; someHandler(); })
}
})(jQuery)
What I don't like here is that in this case I can't handle response failing (eg. I can't set timeout for response to come) and overall approach (I suppose there should be a way to use more power of functional programming here)
Any ideas?
Regards!
UPD: Thanks for solution with chaining callbacks. I found a good approach here:. this is what was proposed in comments:
(function hidenext(jq){
jq.eq(0).fadeOut("fast", function(){
(jq=jq.slice(1)).length && hidenext(jq);
});
})($('div#bodyContent a'))
With a little bit of tweaking it can wait for the last callback.
Now I want to handle properly long running requests. Any clues?
Duplicate of javascript: execute a bunch of asynchronous method with one callback
function createCallback(limit, fn){
var finishedCalls = 0;
return function(){
if (++finishedCalls == limit){
fn();
}
};
}
var callback = createCallback(4, function(){
alert("woot!");
});
async1(callback);
async2(callback);
async3(callback);
async4(callback);
Maybe you could 'cascade' the downloads, so the callback of the first getJSON triggers download from the next source, and so on? Then in the last callback you have no sources left and can call your 'done' function.
You can always use $.ajax with "async: false" in options and/or use proper callbacks (beforeSend, error, dataFilter, success and complete).
Maybe I am wrong - but the rule is: serialization of AJAX - one at a time
So you HAVE to chain it - each response (call back function) must submit the next one in turn
*.onreadystatechange will give you control (a function that is) )when it is ready - here you can submit the next one in turn
Related
Sometimes I see return being used to invoke callbacks, especially if the callback contains an error.
Let's say I have code like:
function one(cb) {
// Call some service and wait for the response, but let's take the following as an example
if (2+2 === 4) {
cb(null);
} else {
// this vs return cb(false);
cb(false);
}
console.log("test");
}
one(function(error) {
if (error)
console.log(error);
});
When would returning a callback actually make sense and be useful?
here's a way you can see the difference between using return, or not:
var one = function(cb) {
// Call some service and wait for the
// response, but let's take the following as an example
if (2+2 === 4) {
cb(true);
}
if (2+3 !== 4){
cb(false);
}
console.log("test");
};
one(function(val) {
if (val === true){
setTimeout(function(){
console.log('true');
},
1000);
}
if (val === false){
console.log('false');
}
});
this outputs false test then one second later true
if you change the first conditional inside the one function to:
if (2+2 === 4) {
return cb(true);
}
What do you notice?
The output is nothing for one second, and then just true.
Why? Because using return in a function signifies that you want to do that final action, and then jump out of the function execution context. No further code is run in that function.
The short answer is that it is used in asynchronous programming; when the result my take some time to reach, an approach is often taken to make the function "call back" through a callback when it has (finally) completed. This allows the caller of the function in question to continue performing actions whilst waiting for the return value.
Therefore, using a callback would "make sense and be useful" when the task the function is performing could take a (relatively) long time to complete. You may very well have seen callbacks commonly used when making AJAX requests. An asynchronous approach is taken here to allow the caller to continue running other JavaScript to react to whatever event triggered it. If a synchronous approach was taken, you would likely see the page/JavaScript hanging whilst waiting for the response for the AJAX request.
Callbacks are also useful for defining handlers for multiple outcomes of a function. For example, jQuery allows the user to specify individual callbacks to be executed if its AJAX function fails, succeeds, or is aborted.
To answer your question about using return cb(ev) or similar:
That said, it is critical that a Return statement is also used in an asynchronous workflow in order to ensure that multiple callbacks are not invoked accidentally.
(Taken from here)
Although I might have a hard time coming up with an example for it, for one reason or another it may be desirable for the function caller to have a "flag" raised which could be set through the callback. Perhaps if this function (the one which is using return cb(ev)) is returning to the internals of a "helper function", this return might trigger another procedure such as a clean-up, which is handled after the callback has been triggered.
I'm no sure, but I think that the callback function is not the best pattern for the behavior in your sample.
A better pattern for this behavior is Promises. See a good tutorial :http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/es6/promises/
So, I have a page that loads and through jquery.get makes several requests to populate drop downs with their values.
$(function() {
LoadCategories($('#Category'));
LoadPositions($('#Position'));
LoadDepartments($('#Department'));
LoadContact();
};
It then calls LoadContact(); Which does another call, and when it returns it populates all the fields on the form. The problem is that often, the dropdowns aren't all populated, and thus, it can't set them to the correct value.
What I need to be able to do, is somehow have LoadContact only execute once the other methods are complete and callbacks done executing.
But, I don't want to have to put a bunch of flags in the end of the drop down population callbacks, that I then check, and have to have a recursive setTimeout call checking, prior to calling LoadContact();
Is there something in jQuery that allows me to say, "Execute this, when all of these are done."?
More Info
I am thinking something along these lines
$().executeAfter(
function () { // When these are done
LoadCategories($('#Category'));
LoadPositions($('#Position'));
LoadDepartments($('#Department'));
},
LoadContact // Do this
);
...it would need to keep track of the ajax calls that happen during the execution of the methods, and when they are all complete, call LoadContact;
If I knew how to intercept ajax that are being made in that function, I could probably write a jQuery extension to do this.
My Solution
;(function($) {
$.fn.executeAfter = function(methods, callback) {
var stack = [];
var trackAjaxSend = function(event, XMLHttpRequest, ajaxOptions) {
var url = ajaxOptions.url;
stack.push(url);
}
var trackAjaxComplete = function(event, XMLHttpRequest, ajaxOptions) {
var url = ajaxOptions.url;
var index = jQuery.inArray(url, stack);
if (index >= 0) {
stack.splice(index, 1);
}
if (stack.length == 0) {
callback();
$this.unbind("ajaxComplete");
}
}
var $this = $(this);
$this.ajaxSend(trackAjaxSend)
$this.ajaxComplete(trackAjaxComplete)
methods();
$this.unbind("ajaxSend");
};
})(jQuery);
This binds to the ajaxSend event while the methods are being called and keeps a list of urls (need a better unique id though) that are called. It then unbinds from ajaxSend so only the requests we care about are tracked. It also binds to ajaxComplete and removes items from the stack as they return. When the stack reaches zero, it executes our callback, and unbinds the ajaxComplete event.
You can use .ajaxStop() like this:
$(function() {
$(document).ajaxStop(function() {
$(this).unbind("ajaxStop"); //prevent running again when other calls finish
LoadContact();
});
LoadCategories($('#Category'));
LoadPositions($('#Position'));
LoadDepartments($('#Department'));
});
This will run when all current requests are finished then unbind itself so it doesn't run if future ajax calls in the page execute. Also, make sure to put it before your ajax calls, so it gets bound early enough, it's more important with .ajaxStart(), but best practice to do it with both.
Expanding on Tom Lianza's answer, $.when() is now a much better way to accomplish this than using .ajaxStop().
The only caveat is that you need to be sure the asynchronous methods you need to wait on return a Deferred object. Luckily jQuery ajax calls already do this by default. So to implement the scenario from the question, the methods that need to be waited on would look something like this:
function LoadCategories(argument){
var deferred = $.ajax({
// ajax setup
}).then(function(response){
// optional callback to handle this response
});
return deferred;
}
Then to call LoadContact() after all three ajax calls have returned and optionally executed their own individual callbacks:
// setting variables to emphasize that the functions must return deferred objects
var deferred1 = LoadCategories($('#Category'));
var deferred2 = LoadPositions($('#Position'));
var deferred3 = LoadDepartments($('#Department'));
$.when(deferred1, deferred2, deferred3).then(LoadContact);
If you're on Jquery 1.5 or later, I suspect the Deferred object is your best bet:
http://api.jquery.com/category/deferred-object/
The helper method, when, is also quite nice:
http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.when/
But, I don't want to have to put a bunch of flags in the end of the drop down population callbacks, that I then check, and have to have a recursive setTimeout call checking, prior to calling LoadContact();
No need for setTimeout. You just check in each callback that all three lists are populated (or better setup a counter, increase it in each callback and wait till it's equal to 3) and then call LoadContact from callback. Seems pretty easy to me.
ajaxStop approach might work to, I'm just not very familiar with it.
I have a node application that is not a web application - it completes a series of asynchronous tasks before returning 1. Immediately before returning, the results of the program are printed to the console.
How do I make sure all the asynchronous work is completed before returning? I was able to achieve something similar to this in a web application by making sure all tasks we completed before calling res.end(), but I haven't any equivalent for a final 'event' to call before letting a script return.
See below for my (broken) function currently, attempting to wait until callStack is empty. I just discovered that this is a kind of nonsensical approach because node waits for processHub to complete before entering any of the asynchronous functions called in processObjWithRef.
function processHub(hubFileContents){
var callStack = [];
var myNewObj = {};
processObjWithRef(samplePayload, myNewObj, callStack);
while(callStack.length>0){
//do nothing
}
return 1
}
Note: I have tried many times previously to achieve this kind of behavior with libraries like async (see my related question at How can I make this call to request in nodejs synchronous?) so please take the answer and comments there into account before suggesting any answers based on 'just use asynch'.
You cannot wait for an asynchronous event before returning--that's the definition of asynchronous! Trying to force Node into this programming style will only cause you pain. A naive example would be to check periodically to see if callstack is empty.
var callstack = [...];
function processHub(contents) {
doSomethingAsync(..., callstack);
}
// check every second to see if callstack is empty
var interval = setInterval(function() {
if (callstack.length == 0) {
clearInterval(interval);
doSomething()
}
}, 1000);
Instead, the usual way to do async stuff in Node is to implement a callback to your function.
function processHub(hubFileContents, callback){
var callStack = [];
var myNewObj = {};
processObjWithRef(samplePayload, myNewObj, callStack, function() {
if (callStack.length == 0) {
callback(some_results);
}
});
}
If you really want to return something, check out promises; they are guaranteed to emit an event either immediately or at some point in the future when they are resolved.
function processHub(hubFileContents){
var callStack = [];
var myNewObj = {};
var promise = new Promise();
// assuming processObjWithRef takes a callback
processObjWithRef(samplePayload, myNewObj, callStack, function() {
if (callStack.length == 0) {
promise.resolve(some_results);
}
});
return promise;
}
processHubPromise = processHub(...);
processHubPromise.then(function(result) {
// do something with 'result' when complete
});
The problem is with your design of the function. You want to return a synchronous result from a list of tasks that are executed asynchronously.
You should implement your function with an extra parameter that will be the callback where you would put the result (in this case, 1) for some consumer to do something with it.
Also you need to have a callback parameter in your inner function, otherwise you won't know when it ends. If this last thing is not possible, then you should do some kind of polling (using setInterval perhaps) to test when the callStack array is populated.
Remember, in Javascript you should never ever do a busy wait. That will lock your program entirely as it runs on a single process.
deasync is desinged to address your problem exactly. Just replace
while(callStack.length>0){
//do nothing
}
with
require('deasync').loopWhile(function(){return callStack.length>0;});
The problem is that node.js is single-threaded, which means that if one function runs, nothing else runs (event-loop) until that function has returned. So you can not block a function to make it return after async stuff is done.
You could, for example, set up a counter variable that counts started async tasks and decrement that counter using a callback function (that gets called after the task has finished) from your async code.
Node.js runs on A SINGLE threaded event loop and leverages asynchronous calls for doing various things, like I/O operations.
if you need to wait for a number of asynchronous operations to finish before executing additional code
you can try using Async -
Node.js Async Tutorial
You'll need to start designing and thinking asynchronously, which can take a little while to get used to at first. This is a simple example of how you would tackle something like "returning" after a function call.
function doStuff(param, cb) {
//do something
var newData = param;
//"return"
cb(newData);
}
doStuff({some:data}, function(myNewData) {
//you're done with doStuff in here
});
There's also a lot of helpful utility functions in the async library available on npm.
I'm trying to figure the best way to get my functions executing in the correct order.
I have 3 functions
function 1 - squirts OPTIONs into a SELECT via JSON and marks them as selected
function 2 - squirts OPTIONS into a 2nd SELECT and marks them as selected
function 3 - gets the values from the above SELECTs along with some additional INPUT values, does an AJAX GET resulting in JSON data, which is read and populates a table.
With JQuery Onload, I execute:
function1();
function2();
function3();
I'm finding function3 is executing before the SELECTs have been populated with OPTIONS and hence the table has no results, because the values sent in the GET were blank.
I know this is probably a very simple problem and that there are probably a dozen ways to accomplish this, but basically I need the best way to code this so that function3 only runs if function1 and 2 are complete.
I've come into Javascript via the back door having learnt the basics of JQuery first!
Thanks for your assistance.
Javascript executes synchronously, which means that function3 must wait for function2 to complete, which must wait for function1 to complete before executing.
The exception is when you run code that is asynchronous, like a setTimeout, setInterval or an asynchronous AJAX request.
Any subsequent code that relies on the completion of such asynchronous code needs to be called in such a manner that it doesn't execute until the asynchronous code has completed.
In the case of the setTimeout, you could just place the next function call at the end of the function you're passing to the setTimeout.
In the case of an AJAX call, you can place the next function call in a callback that fires upon a completed request.
If you don't want the execution of the subsequent function to occur every time, you can modify your functions to accept a function argument that gets called at the end of the asynchronous code.
Something like:
function function1( fn ) {
setTimeout(function() {
// your code
// Call the function parameter if it exists
if( fn ) {
fn();
}
}, 200);
}
function function2() {
// some code that must wait for function1
}
onload:
// Call function1 and pass function2 as an argument
function1( function2 );
// ...or call function1 without the argument
function1();
// ...or call function2 independently of function1
function2();
I recommend you use a Promises library. You can hack simple solutions like other answers suggest, but as your application grows, you'll find you are doing more and more of these hacks. Promises are intended to solve these kinds of problems when dealing with asynchronous calls.
The CommonJS project has several Promises proposals which you should check out. Here is a question I asked on SO about Promises a while back with links to other solutions. Learn more about Promises in this Douglas Crockford video. The whole video is good, but skip to just past half way for promises.
I'm using the FuturesJS library currently as it suits my needs. But there are advantages to other implementations as well. It allows you to do sequences very easily:
// Initialize Application
Futures.sequence(function (next) {
// First load the UI description document
loadUI(next); // next() is called inside loadUI
})
.then(function(next) {
// Then load all templates specified in the description
loadTemplates(next); // next() is called inside loadTemplates
})
.then(function(next) {
// Then initialize all templates specified in the description
initTemplates();
});
Even more powerful is when you need to join async events together and do another action when all of the other async events have completed. Here's an example (untested) that will load a bunch of HTML files and then perform an action only once ALL of them have completed loading:
var path = "/templates/",
templates = ["one.html","two.html","three.html"],
promises = [];
$.each(templates, function(i,name) {
promises[i] = Futures.promise();
var $container = $("<div>");
$container.load(path+name, function(response,status,xhr) {
promises[i].fullfill();
}
});
Futures.join(promises, {timeout: 10000}) // Fail if promises not completed in 10 seconds
.when(function(p_arr) {
console.log("All templates loaded");
})
.fail(function(p_arr) {
console.log("Error loading templates");
});
This might be overkill for your application. But if the application is growing in complexity, using promises will help you in the long run.
I hope this helps!
invoke function2 inside of function1 and function3 inside of function2.
It's not clear why f1 and f2 are executing before f3.
Also, are you using the preferred $(document).ready() or some variation of onload?
It might be helpful if you provide a reproducible test case.
fun3() will only run after both are ready. It might run twice. You can fix this with a lock inside fun3() you would need a Singleton to guarantee it works correctly.
var select1ready = false, select2ready = false;
fun1()
{
// do stuff
select1ready = true;
fun3();
}
fun2()
{
// do stuff
select2ready = true;
fun3();
}
fun3()
{
if (select1ready && select2ready)
{
}
}
fun1();
fun2();
If I have an ajax call off fetching (with a callback) and then some other code running in the meantime. How can I have a third function that will be called when both of the first 2 are done. I'm sure it is easy with polling (setTimeout and then check some variables) but I'd rather a callback.
Is it possible?
You could just give the same callback to both your AJAX call and your other code running in the meantime, use a variable to track their combined progress, then link them to a callback like below:
// Each time you start a call, increment this by one
var counter = 0;
var callback = function() {
counter--;
if (counter == 0) {
// Execute code you wanted to do once both threads are finished.
}
}
Daniel's solution is the proper one. I took it and added some extra code so you don't have to think too much ;)
function createNotifier() {
var counter = 2;
return function() {
if (--counter == 0) {
// do stuff
}
};
}
var notify = createNotifier();
var later = function() {
var done = false;
// do stuff and set done to true if you're done
if (done) {
notify();
}
};
function doAjaxCall(notify) {
var ajaxCallback = function() {
// Respond to the AJAX callback here
// Notify that the Ajax callback is done
notify();
};
// Here you perform the AJAX call action
}
setInterval(later, 200);
doAjaxCall(notify);
The best approach to this is to take advantage of the fact that functions are first-order objects in JavaScript. Therefore you can assign them to variables and invoke them through the variable, changing the function that the variable refers to as needed.
For example:
function firstCallback() {
// the first thing has happened
// so when the next thing happens, we want to do stuff
callback = secondCallback;
}
function secondCallback() {
// do stuff now both things have happened
}
var callback = firstCallback;
If both your pieces of code now use the variable to call the function:
callback();
then whichever one executes first will call the firstCallback, which changes the variable to point to the secondCallback, and so that will be called by whichever executes second.
However your phrasing of the question implies that this may all be unnecessary, as it sounds like you are making an Ajax request and then continuing processing. As JavaScript interpreters are single-threaded, the Ajax callback will never be executed until the main body of code that made the request has finished executing anyway, even if that is long after the response has been received.
In case that isn't your situation, I've created a working example on my site; view the source to see the code (just before the </body> tag). It makes a request which is delayed by the server for a couple of seconds, then a request which receives an immediate response. The second request's response is handled by one function, and the first request's response is later handled by a different function, as the request that received a response first has changed the callback variable to refer to the second function.
You are talking about a thing called deferred in javascript as #Chris Conway mentioned above. Similarly jQuery also has Deferred since v1.5.
Check these Deferred.when() or deferred.done()
Don't forget to check jQuery doc.
But to give you some idea here is what I am copying from that site.
$.when($.ajax("/page1.php"), $.ajax("/page2.php")).done(function(a1, a2){
/* a1 and a2 are arguments resolved for the
page1 and page2 ajax requests, respectively */
var jqXHR = a1[2]; /* arguments are [ "success", statusText, jqXHR ] */
if ( /Whip It/.test(jqXHR.responseText) ) {
alert("First page has 'Whip It' somewhere.");
}
});
//Using deferred.then()
$.when($.ajax("/page1.php"), $.ajax("/page2.php"))
.then(myFunc, myFailure);
Something like this (schematic):
registerThread() {
counter++;
}
unregisterThread() {
if (--counter == 0) fireEvent('some_user_event');
}
eventHandler_for_some_user_event() {
do_stuff();
}
You can do this easily with Google's Closure library, specifically goog.async.Deferred:
// Deferred is a container for an incomplete computation.
var ajaxFinished = goog.async.Deferred();
// ajaxCall is the asynchronous function we're calling.
ajaxCall( //args...,
function() { // callback
// Process the results...
ajaxFinished.callback(); // Signal completion
}
);
// Do other stuff...
// Wait for the callback completion before proceeding
goog.async.when(ajaxFinished, function() {
// Do the rest of the stuff...
});
You can join multiple asynchronous computations using awaitDeferred, chainDeferred, or goog.async.DeferredList.