I am trying to wrap an async function that returns an event emitter to make it sync on the server, using Meteor.wrapAsync.
Here is my current implementation :
var wrapAsync = function(asyncFunc, context){
return Meteor.wrapAsync(
(data,callback)=>{
asyncFunc(data).on('complete', function(data){
callback(null,data)
})
},
context
)
}
So, my idea was :
1 - to wrap the event emitter into a classical function(args, callback) async function
2 - to pass it to Meteor.wrapAsync, that needs a function with an (err,res) callback as its parameter, and returns a sync function
This does not work, as the context is not correctly passed to the function. I tried with a fat arrow, but it does not work.
What is the best practice in this case ?
Related
I often use the promisify method, which converts a method with a callback signature (e.g. fucntion fn(cb) { ... }) to a method which returns a Promise. It can make the source code a lot cleaner and more compact. So far so good.
Slightly different, are methods which have a callback method, but the callback is called multiple times. In that case a Promise cannot do the trick, because a promise can only be executed once.
In theory, those methods could return a Subject. (e.g. a BehaviorSubject) which would then be fired multiple times.
This made me wondering:
Is there a subjectify method somewhere, which can do this for me ?
For example: it could be useful when there is a method which parses a big document. To report on its progress, it could use a callback method. But wrapping it in a Subject could be more convenient.
There are some operator that helps you convert callback to observable
https://rxjs-dev.firebaseapp.com/api/index/function/fromEventPattern
but you can quite easily integrate subject to callback like below
const progress=new Subject()
myEvent.on('progress', (p)=>{
progress.next(p)
})
You may want to consider to create an Observable in cases your callback is called repeatedly and you want to notify a stream of events as a result of the callback being called.
Let's consider, as an example, the node readline function, which accepts a callback which gets fired for each line read and a second callback which is called when the file end is reached.
In this case, we can create an Observable which emits for each line read and completes when the end is reached, like in the following example
function readLineObs(filePath: string) => {
return new Observable(
(observer: Observer<string>): TeardownLogic => {
const rl = readline.createInterface({
input: fs.createReadStream(filePath),
crlfDelay: Infinity,
});
rl.on('line', (line: string) => {
observer.next(line);
});
rl.on('close', () => {
observer.complete();
});
},
);
};
I have function getData() which make an ajax call and retrive JSON data. On success i call another function which is marquee() . inside marquee on finish event i call getData() again, But each time getData() when get called, it increases it's request to mentioned file data.php, For example on first call it call once, Second call it request twice, and then twice become 4times,8times and more and more, how to avoid this?!
function getData()
{
$.get('data.php).done(function(response)
{
var data = JSON.parse(response);
if(data.Direction == "left")
{
$(".marquee").html("<span data-direction='"+data.Direction+"'>"+data.Message+"</span>");
}else if(data.Direction == "right"){
$(".marquee").html("<span data- direction='"+data.Direction+"'>"+data.Message+"</span>");
}
});
}
function marquee()
{
$(".marquee").marquee({duration : 10000}).bind("finished",function()
{
getData();
});
}
I hope i was clear... Appreciate each answer.
Every time you are calling marquee function, you are basically binding an event finished on to it. On multiple such function calls, you will have duplicate events. In your code setup, you need to unbind the function before binding it. Something like
$(".marquee").marquee({duration : 10000}).unbind("finished",getData).bind("finished",getData)
Ideally, you should bind only once so you do not have to unbind it again and again.
I've been developing JavaScript for a few years and I don't understand the fuss about promises at all.
It seems like all I do is change:
api(function(result){
api2(function(result2){
api3(function(result3){
// do work
});
});
});
Which I could use a library like async for anyway, with something like:
api().then(function(result){
api2().then(function(result2){
api3().then(function(result3){
// do work
});
});
});
Which is more code and less readable. I didn't gain anything here, it's not suddenly magically 'flat' either. Not to mention having to convert things to promises.
So, what's the big fuss about promises here?
Promises are not callbacks. A promise represents the future result of an asynchronous operation. Of course, writing them the way you do, you get little benefit. But if you write them the way they are meant to be used, you can write asynchronous code in a way that resembles synchronous code and is much more easy to follow:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
});
Certainly, not much less code, but much more readable.
But this is not the end. Let's discover the true benefits: What if you wanted to check for any error in any of the steps? It would be hell to do it with callbacks, but with promises, is a piece of cake:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle any error that may occur before this point
});
Pretty much the same as a try { ... } catch block.
Even better:
api().then(function(result){
return api2();
}).then(function(result2){
return api3();
}).then(function(result3){
// do work
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle any error that may occur before this point
}).then(function() {
//do something whether there was an error or not
//like hiding an spinner if you were performing an AJAX request.
});
And even better: What if those 3 calls to api, api2, api3 could run simultaneously (e.g. if they were AJAX calls) but you needed to wait for the three? Without promises, you should have to create some sort of counter. With promises, using the ES6 notation, is another piece of cake and pretty neat:
Promise.all([api(), api2(), api3()]).then(function(result) {
//do work. result is an array contains the values of the three fulfilled promises.
}).catch(function(error) {
//handle the error. At least one of the promises rejected.
});
Hope you see Promises in a new light now.
Yes, Promises are asynchronous callbacks. They can't do anything that callbacks can't do, and you face the same problems with asynchrony as with plain callbacks.
However, Promises are more than just callbacks. They are a very mighty abstraction, allow cleaner and better, functional code with less error-prone boilerplate.
So what's the main idea?
Promises are objects representing the result of a single (asynchronous) computation. They resolve to that result only once. There's a few things what this means:
Promises implement an observer pattern:
You don't need to know the callbacks that will use the value before the task completes.
Instead of expecting callbacks as arguments to your functions, you can easily return a Promise object
The promise will store the value, and you can transparently add a callback whenever you want. It will be called when the result is available. "Transparency" implies that when you have a promise and add a callback to it, it doesn't make a difference to your code whether the result has arrived yet - the API and contracts are the same, simplifying caching/memoisation a lot.
You can add multiple callbacks easily
Promises are chainable (monadic, if you want):
If you need to transform the value that a promise represents, you map a transform function over the promise and get back a new promise that represents the transformed result. You cannot synchronously get the value to use it somehow, but you can easily lift the transformation in the promise context. No boilerplate callbacks.
If you want to chain two asynchronous tasks, you can use the .then() method. It will take a callback to be called with the first result, and returns a promise for the result of the promise that the callback returns.
Sounds complicated? Time for a code example.
var p1 = api1(); // returning a promise
var p3 = p1.then(function(api1Result) {
var p2 = api2(); // returning a promise
return p2; // The result of p2 …
}); // … becomes the result of p3
// So it does not make a difference whether you write
api1().then(function(api1Result) {
return api2().then(console.log)
})
// or the flattened version
api1().then(function(api1Result) {
return api2();
}).then(console.log)
Flattening does not come magically, but you can easily do it. For your heavily nested example, the (near) equivalent would be
api1().then(api2).then(api3).then(/* do-work-callback */);
If seeing the code of these methods helps understanding, here's a most basic promise lib in a few lines.
What's the big fuss about promises?
The Promise abstraction allows much better composability of functions. For example, next to then for chaining, the all function creates a promise for the combined result of multiple parallel-waiting promises.
Last but not least Promises come with integrated error handling. The result of the computation might be that either the promise is fulfilled with a value, or it is rejected with a reason. All the composition functions handle this automatically and propagate errors in promise chains, so that you don't need to care about it explicitly everywhere - in contrast to a plain-callback implementation. In the end, you can add a dedicated error callback for all occurred exceptions.
Not to mention having to convert things to promises.
That's quite trivial actually with good promise libraries, see How do I convert an existing callback API to promises?
In addition to the already established answers, with ES6 arrow functions Promises turn from a modestly shining small blue dwarf straight into a red giant. That is about to collapse into a supernova:
api().then(result => api2()).then(result2 => api3()).then(result3 => console.log(result3))
As oligofren pointed out, without arguments between api calls you don't need the anonymous wrapper functions at all:
api().then(api2).then(api3).then(r3 => console.log(r3))
And finally, if you want to reach a supermassive black hole level, Promises can be awaited:
async function callApis() {
let api1Result = await api();
let api2Result = await api2(api1Result);
let api3Result = await api3(api2Result);
return api3Result;
}
In addition to the awesome answers above, 2 more points may be added:
1. Semantic difference:
Promises may be already resolved upon creation. This means they guarantee conditions rather than events. If they are resolved already, the resolved function passed to it is still called.
Conversely, callbacks handle events. So, if the event you are interested in has happened before the callback has been registered, the callback is not called.
2. Inversion of control
Callbacks involve inversion of control. When you register a callback function with any API, the Javascript runtime stores the callback function and calls it from the event loop once it is ready to be run.
Refer The Javascript Event loop for an explanation.
With Promises, control resides with the calling program. The .then() method may be called at any time if we store the promise object.
In addition to the other answers, the ES2015 syntax blends seamlessly with promises, reducing even more boilerplate code:
// Sequentially:
api1()
.then(r1 => api2(r1))
.then(r2 => api3(r2))
.then(r3 => {
// Done
});
// Parallel:
Promise.all([
api1(),
api2(),
api3()
]).then(([r1, r2, r3]) => {
// Done
});
Promises are not callbacks, both are programming idioms that facilitate async programming. Using an async/await-style of programming using coroutines or generators that return promises could be considered a 3rd such idiom. A comparison of these idioms across different programming languages (including Javascript) is here: https://github.com/KjellSchubert/promise-future-task
No, Not at all.
Callbacks are simply Functions In JavaScript which are to be called and then executed after the execution of another function has finished. So how it happens?
Actually, In JavaScript, functions are itself considered as objects and hence as all other objects, even functions can be sent as arguments to other functions. The most common and generic use case one can think of is setTimeout() function in JavaScript.
Promises are nothing but a much more improvised approach of handling and structuring asynchronous code in comparison to doing the same with callbacks.
The Promise receives two Callbacks in constructor function: resolve and reject. These callbacks inside promises provide us with fine-grained control over error handling and success cases. The resolve callback is used when the execution of promise performed successfully and the reject callback is used to handle the error cases.
No promises are just wrapper on callbacks
example
You can use javascript native promises with node js
my cloud 9 code link : https://ide.c9.io/adx2803/native-promises-in-node
/**
* Created by dixit-lab on 20/6/16.
*/
var express = require('express');
var request = require('request'); //Simplified HTTP request client.
var app = express();
function promisify(url) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
request.get(url, function (error, response, body) {
if (!error && response.statusCode == 200) {
resolve(body);
}
else {
reject(error);
}
})
});
}
//get all the albums of a user who have posted post 100
app.get('/listAlbums', function (req, res) {
//get the post with post id 100
promisify('http://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts/100').then(function (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
return promisify('http://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users/' + obj.userId + '/albums')
})
.catch(function (e) {
console.log(e);
})
.then(function (result) {
res.end(result);
}
)
})
var server = app.listen(8081, function () {
var host = server.address().address
var port = server.address().port
console.log("Example app listening at http://%s:%s", host, port)
})
//run webservice on browser : http://localhost:8081/listAlbums
JavaScript Promises actually use callback functions to determine what to do after a Promise has been resolved or rejected, therefore both are not fundamentally different. The main idea behind Promises is to take callbacks - especially nested callbacks where you want to perform a sort of actions, but it would be more readable.
Promises overview:
In JS we can wrap asynchronous operations (e.g database calls, AJAX calls) in promises. Usually we want to run some additional logic on the retrieved data. JS promises have handler functions which process the result of the asynchronous operations. The handler functions can even have other asynchronous operations within them which could rely on the value of the previous asynchronous operations.
A promise always has of the 3 following states:
pending: starting state of every promise, neither fulfilled nor rejected.
fulfilled: The operation completed successfully.
rejected: The operation failed.
A pending promise can be resolved/fullfilled or rejected with a value. Then the following handler methods which take callbacks as arguments are called:
Promise.prototype.then() : When the promise is resolved the callback argument of this function will be called.
Promise.prototype.catch() : When the promise is rejected the callback argument of this function will be called.
Although the above methods skill get callback arguments they are far superior than using
only callbacks here is an example that will clarify a lot:
Example
function createProm(resolveVal, rejectVal) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
if (Math.random() > 0.5) {
console.log("Resolved");
resolve(resolveVal);
} else {
console.log("Rejected");
reject(rejectVal);
}
}, 1000);
});
}
createProm(1, 2)
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
return resVal + 1;
})
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
return resVal + 2;
})
.catch((rejectVal) => {
console.log(rejectVal);
return rejectVal + 1;
})
.then((resVal) => {
console.log(resVal);
})
.finally(() => {
console.log("Promise done");
});
The createProm function creates a promises which is resolved or rejected based on a random Nr after 1 second
If the promise is resolved the first then method is called and the resolved value is passed in as an argument of the callback
If the promise is rejected the first catch method is called and the rejected value is passed in as an argument
The catch and then methods return promises that's why we can chain them. They wrap any returned value in Promise.resolve and any thrown value (using the throw keyword) in Promise.reject. So any value returned is transformed into a promise and on this promise we can again call a handler function.
Promise chains give us more fine tuned control and better overview than nested callbacks. For example the catch method handles all the errors which have occurred before the catch handler.
Promises allows programmers to write simpler and far more readable code than by using callbacks.
In a program, there are steps want to do in series.
function f() {
step_a();
step_b();
step_c();
...
}
There's usually information carried between each step.
function f() {
const a = step_a( );
const b = step_b( a );
const c = step_c( b );
...
}
Some of these steps can take a (relatively) long time, so sometimes you want to do them in parallel with other things. One way to do that is using threads. Another is asynchronous programming. (Both approaches has pros and cons, which won't be discussed here.) Here, we're talking about asynchronous programming.
The simple way to achieve the above when using asynchronous programming would be to provide a callback which is called once a step is complete.
// step_* calls the provided function with the returned value once complete.
function f() {
step_a(
function( a )
step_b(
function( b )
step_c(
...
)
},
)
},
)
}
That's quite hard to read. Promises offer a way to flatten the code.
// step_* returns a promise.
function f() {
step_a()
.then( step_b )
.then( step_c )
...
}
The object returned is called a promise because it represents the future result (i.e. promised result) of the function (which could be a value or an exception).
As much as promises help, it's still a bit complicated to use promises. This is where async and await come in. In a function declared as async, await can be used in lieu of then.
// step_* returns a promise.
async function f()
const a = await step_a( );
const b = await step_b( a );
const c = await step_c( b );
...
}
This is undeniably much much more readable than using callbacks.
Task: get data from server with $.post, process them by method .success(), after that call some function.
var t;
$.when($.post("get_json.php", function(res) {
t = res;
}, 'json')).done(function() {
console.log(t);
});
Do I understand correctly that the Deferred method .done() is executed after .success is done (ie t = res)?
But why "console.log(t)" shows "undefined"?
Is .done() fires after request, but before .success()?
Passing a "success" callback to $.post() is an alternative to the (preferred) chaining of .done(...). Do one or the other, not both, then you don't need to worry about the execution order.
Also, unless you have a decent caching strategy for async data, you shouldn't be setting t as an outer var.
$.post("get_json.php", ...).done(function(t) {
console.log(t);
//do awesome things with t here
});
Caching would be something like this :
var asyncCache = {};
...
function get_t() {
return (asyncCache.t) ? $.when(asyncCache.t) : $.post("get_json.php", ...).done(function(t) {
asyncCache.t = t;
});
}
...
get_t().done(function(t) {
console.log(t);
//do awesome things with t here
}
$.when() is ONLY needed when you have multiple promises and you want to wait for all of them to complete. You simply don't need it at all for your single ajax call. You can just do it like this:
$.post("get_json.php").done(function(t) {
// use the results of the ajax call here
console.log(t);
});
In addition, your code example was using BOTH a success callback function AND a .done() handler. Pick one of the other, not both as they are different ways of getting a callback when the ajax call is done. I'd suggest the promise implementation above because it's more flexible. But, you could also use just the success handler:
$.post("get_json.php", function(t) {
// use the results of the ajax call here
console.log(t);
}, 'json');
Note, when you have an asynchronous operation like this, you need to consume the results of the ajax call in the success callback (or the promise callback) or call some function from there and pass it the data. You do not want to put the data into a global variable or a variable in a higher scope because other code will simply have no way of knowing when the data is ready and when it is not. Put your action in the callback.
If you have more than one ajax call that you want to wait for, then you can do it like this:
$.when($.post("get_json.php"), $.post("get_json2.php")).done(function(r1, r2) {
// use the results of the ajax call here
console.log(r1[0]); // results from first ajax call
console.log(r2[0]); // results from second ajax call
});
I have and application written in NodeJS with Express and am attempting to use EventEmitter to create a kind of plugin architecture with plugins hooking into the main code by listening to emitted events.
My problem comes when a plugin function makes an async request (to get data from mongo in this case) this causes the plugin code to finish and return control back to the original emitter which will then complete execution, before the async request in the plugin code finishes.
E.g:
Main App:
// We want to modify the request object in the plugin
self.emit('plugin-listener', request);
Plugin:
// Plugin function listening to 'plugin-listener', 'request' is an arg
console.log(request);
// Call to DB (async)
this.getFromMongo(some_data, function(response){
// this may not get called until the plugin function has finished!
}
My reason for avoiding a callback function back to the main code from the 'getFromMongo' function is that there may be 0 or many plugins listening to the event. Ideally I want some way to wait for the DB stuff to finish before returning control to the main app
Many Thanks
Using the EventEmitter for plugin/middleware management is not ideal, because you cannot ensure that the listeners are executed sequentially, if they have asynchroneous code. This especially is a problem when these listeners interact with each other or the same data.
That's why i.e. connect/express middleware functions are stored in an array and executed one after the other, instead of using an EventEmitter; They each need to call a next(); function when they are done doing their task.
You can't mix asynchronous calls with synchronous behavior. If you're going to stick with event emitter (which may not be ideal for you as Klovadis pointed out), you'll need to have your plugin emit an event that triggers a function in the main app which contains the code that you want to 'wait' to execute. You would also have to in turn keep track of all the plugin calls you made that you are waiting for event calls for so that your main code doesn't run until all the plugin calls have finished their MongoDB callbacks.
var callList = ['pluginArgs1', 'pluginArgs2', 'pluginArgs3'];
for (var i = 0; i < callList.length; i++){
self.emit('plugin-listener', callList[i], i);
}
self.on('plugin-callback', function(i){
callList.splice(i, 1);
if (callList.length < 1){
//we're done, do something
}
});
Had the same kind of decision to make about some events that I sometime need to wait for before returning the response to the client and sometimes not (when not in an HTTP request context).
The easiest way for me was to add a callback as the last argument of the event.
Stuff.emit('do_some_stuff', data, data2, callback);
In the event check if there is a callback:
Stuff.on('do_some_stuff', function(data, data2, callback) {
// stuff to do
// ...
if (typeof callback === "function") return callback(err, result);
});
I know that mixing event and callbacks can be messy but that work fine for what I need.
The other solution I see is the one proposed by #redben: add an emit function at the end of the event. The problem when in a HTTP context is that you need unique keys so your events don't mess up if they do different stuff per user.
Haven't tried it myself but you could use a property in the event's data object as an array of functions to execute by the code that emitted the event :
Listeners
foo.on('your-event', function(data) {
console.log(data);
// Then add the asynchronous code to a callbacks array
// in the event data object
data.callbacks.push(function(next) {
getFromMongo(some_data, function(err, result) { next(err) }
}
});
Emitter
self.emit('your-event', data);
// listeners have modified data object,
// some might have added callback to data.callbacks
// (suppose you use async)
async.series(data.callbacks);
This seems quite dangerous, but I have to do it anyway...
const ee = new EventEmitter();
if (ee.listeners("async-event").length > 0) {
await new Promise((resolve) => {
ee.emit("async-event", data1, data2, resolve);
});
}
Otherwise, just emit the event back-and-forth.