I need a Javascript function that serves the purpose shown below. I simply want to wait on the response from the server.
console.log('Before getting the city name.');
zip_code = '60601';
city_name = function_that_slowly_gets_city_name_from_server(zip_code);
console.log(city_name);
console.log('After getting the city name.');
Output in console:
Before getting the city name.
Chicago
After getting the city name.
I do not want the answer ('Chicago') sent to the console in a callback function. I understand that async:false is now taboo with $.ajax(), but I still need for it to work as shown above. I cannot find posts that provide a consistent, straightforward answer.
FOLLOW UP:
I've found many answers on StackOverflow that say synchronous calls are evil. Yet, is there a way to do it anyway?
Based on your comment, your use-case is a quick method of disabling user-interaction while the AJAX call is occurring to ensure the user can't do anything bad (e.g. start a duplicate request/race condition or navigate to a different part of the app, etc.). So maybe locking the thread ain't such a bad idea then, especially for an internal app that doesn't need a ton of frills?
But Here's the Problem:
The user can continue to queue events even during a locked thread. That means that any actions the user takes while a synchronous request is occurring (such as submitting a form) will continue to line up in the background, and will then begin firing as soon as the initial request is finished. So the threat of your user double or triple clicking out of impatience (or even just accidentally) -- and as a result causing duplicate calls to the database -- is very real and likely (for reference, I can double click in ~120ms pretty easily).
The same thread is also responsible for things that might surprise you, such as certain browser-level hotkeys or even exiting the tab at all, meaning yes, you could actually significantly delay the user from closing the application, though that's not likely for a low-traffic database. However, it's certainly not impossible, and it's definitely not desirable, even for an application that doesn't need all the frills of a commercial product.
So What Should I Do as a Quick Solution Instead?:
Well if you still need a quick solution that can effectively freeze the entirety of your application in one go, then depending on your existing code, this shouldn't be too bad either.
Make the request async, as is the default and standard. But before that request fires, select all elements typically in charge of event handling, disable them with the "disabled" attribute, and then re-enable them in the callback. Something like this:
var userStuff = $("input, button, submit, form");
userStuff.prop("disabled", true);
$.ajax({
// other ajax request settings ...
// ...
// ...
complete: (data) => {
userStuff.prop("disabled", false);
}
});
The elements contained within userStuff are just common elements that typically have some event-handling to them. It's up to you to determine if those elements are sufficient for your application, or if your application is so large that such a query could itself have a performance impact. But assuming that checks out, this will prevent the user from interacting with/queueing anything until the request has finished.
I Don't Care. Give me the Sync:
Well in that case, why not just use async: false as mentioned in your OP? I'm somewhat speculating here, but I believe it's not just async: false that's deprecated, but all means of synchronous XMLHttpRequest (which I believe $.ajax still uses under the hood), and I don't think there's any other synchronous alternative to that. So anything you do with synchronous network in mind is going to be evil, but at least in Chrome 89.0, $.ajax({async: false}) still works for me.
I've been trying to implement a call centre type system using Taskrouter using this guide as a base:
https://www.twilio.com/docs/tutorials/walkthrough/dynamic-call-center/ruby/rails
Project location is Australia, if that affects call details.
This system dials multiple numbers (workers), and I have run into an issue where phones will continue to ring even after the call has been accepted or cancelled.
ie. If Taskrouter calls Workers A and B, and A picks up first they are connected to the customer, but B will continue to ring. If B then picks up the phone they are greeted by a hangup tone. Ringing can continue for at least minutes until B picks up (I haven't checked if it ever times out).
Similar occurs if no one picks up and the call simply times out and is redirected to voicemail. As you can imagine, an endlessly ringing phone is pretty annoying, especially when there's no one on the other end.
I was able to replicate this issue using the above guide without modification (other than the minimum changes to set it up locally). Note that it doesn't dial workers simultaneously, rather it dials the first in line for a few seconds before moving to the next.
My interpretation of what is occurring is that Taskrouter is dialling workers, but not updating them when dialling should end, and simply moving on to the next stage of the workflow. It does update Worker status, so it knows if they've timed out for instance, but that doesn't update the actual call.
I have looked for any solutions to this and havent found much about it except the following:
How to make Twilio stop dialing numbers when hangup() is fired?
https://www.twilio.com/docs/api/rest/change-call-state
These don't specifically apply to Taskrouter, but suggest that a call that needs to be ended can be updated and completed.
I am not too sure if I can implement this however, as it seems to be using the same CallSid for all calls being dialled within a Workflow, makes it hard/impossible to seperate each call, and would end the active call as well.
It also just seems wrong that Taskrouter wouldn't be doing this automatically, so I wanted to ask about this before I tinker too much and break things.
Has anyone run into this issue before, or is able/unable to replicate it using the tutorial code?
When testing I've noticed the problem much more on landline numbers, which may only be because mobiles have their own timeout/redirects. VOIPs seem to immediately answer calls, so they behave a bit differently.
Any help/suggestions appreciated, thanks!
Current suggestion to work around this is to not issue the dequeue instruction immediately, but rather issue a Call instruction on the REST API when the Worker wishes to accept the Inbound Call.
This will create an Outbound Call to bridge the two calls together and thus won’t have many outbound calls for the same inbound caller at once.
Your implementation will depend on the behavior that you want to achieve:
Do you want to simul-dial both Workers?
Do you want to send
the task to both Workers and whoever clicks to Accept the Task first
will have the call routed to them?
If it's #2, this is a scenario where you're saying that the Worker should accept the Reservation (reservation.accepted) before issuing the Call.
If it's #1, you can either issue a Call Instruction or Dequeue Instruction. The key being that you provide a DequeueStatusCallbackUrl or CallStatusCallbackUrl to receive call progress events. Once one of the outbound calls is connected, you will need to complete the other associated call. So you will have to unfortunately track which outbound calls are tied to which Reservation, by using AssignmentCallbacks or EventCallbacks, to make that determination within your app.
I just read that some browsers would prevent HTTP polling (I guess by limiting the rate of requests)...
From https://github.com/sstrigler/JSJaC:
Note: As security restrictions of most modern browsers prevent HTTP
Polling from being usable anymore this module is disabled by default
now. If you want to compile it in use 'make polling'.
This could explain some misbehavior of some of my JavaScripts (sometimes requests are just not sent or retried, even if they were actually successful). But I couldn't find further information on details..
Questions
if it's "max. number of requests n per x seconds", what are the usual/default settings for x and n?
Is there any way good resource for this?
Any way to detect if a request has been "delayed" or "rejected" because of a rate limit?
Thanks for your help...
Stefan
Yes, as far as I am aware there is a default pool limit of 10 and a default request timeout of 30 seconds per request, however the timeout and poll limits can be controlled and different browsers implement different limitations!
Check out this Google implementation.
and this is an awesome implementation of catching a timeout error!
You can find the Firefox specifics HERE!
Internet Explorer specifics are controlled from inside the Windows registry.
Also have a look at this question.
Basically, the way you control is not by changing the browser limitations, but by abiding them. So you apply a technique called throttle-ing.
Think of it as creating a FIFO/priority queue of functions. A queue struct that takes xhr requests as members and enforces delay between them is an Xhr Poll. For instance, I am using
Jsonp to get data from a node.js server located on another domain and I am polling of course due to browser limitations. Otherwise, I get zero response back from the server and that is only because of browser limitations.
I am actually doing a console log for every request that's supposed to be sent, but not all of them are being logged. So the browser limits them.
I'll be even more specific with helping you out. I have a page on my website which is supposed to render a view for tens or even hundreds of articles. You go through them using a cool horizontal slider.
The current value of the slider matches the currrent 'page'. Since I am only displaying 5 articles per page and I can't exactly load thousands of articles 'onload' without severe performance implications, I load the articles for the current page. I get them from a MongoDB by sending a cross-domain request to a Python script.
The script is supposed to return an array of five objects with all the details I need to build the DOM elements for a 'page'. However, there are a couple of issues.
First, the slider works extremely fast, as it's more or less a value change. Even if there is drag drop functionality, key down events etc, the actual change takes miliseconds. However, the code of the slider looks something like this:
goog.events.listen(slider, goog.events.EventType.CHANGE, function() {
myProject.Articles.page(slider.getValue());
}
The slider.getValue() method returns an int with the current page number, so basically I have to load from:
currentPage * articlesPerPage to (currentPage * articlesPerPage + 1) - 1
But in order to load, i do something like this:
I have a storage engine(think of it as an array):
I check if the content is not already there
If it is, there is no point to make another request, so go forward with getting the DOM elements from the array with the already created DOM elements in place.
If it isn't, then I need to get it so I need to send that request I was mentioning, which would look something like(without accounting for browser limitations):
JSONP.send({'action':'getMeSomeArticles','start':start,'length': itemsPerPage, function(callback){
// now I just parse the callback quickly to make sure it is consistent
// create DOM elements, and populate the client side storage
// and update the view for the user.
}}
The problem comes from the speed with which you can change that slider. Since every change supposedly triggers a request(same would happen for normal Xhr requests), then you are basically crossing the limitations of all browsers, so without throttle-ing, there would be no 'callback' for most of the requests. 'callback' is the JS code returned by the JSONP request(which is more of a remote script inclusion than anything else).
So what I do is push a request to a priority queue, not POLL, as now I don't need to send multiple simultaneous requests. If the queue is empty, the recently added member is executed and everyone is happy. If it's not, then all non-completed requests in progress are cancelled and only the last one is executed.
Now in my particular case, I do a binary search(0(log n)) to see if the storage engine doesn't have data for the previous requests yet, which tells me if the previous request has been completed or not. If it has, then it's removed from the queue and the current one is processed, otherwise the new one fires. So an and so forth.
Again, for speed consideration and shit browser wanna-bes such as Internet Explorer, I do the above described procedure about 3-4 steps ahead. So I pre-load 20 pages ahead till everything is the client side storage engine. This way, every limitation is successfully dealt with.
The cooldown time is covered by the minimum time it would take to slide through 20 pages and the throttle-ing makes sure there are no more than 1 active requests at any given time(with backwards compatibility going as far as Internet Explorer 5).
The reason why I wrote all this is to give you an example trying to say that you cannot always enforce delay directly from the FIFO structure, as your calls may need to turn into what a user sees, and you don't exactly want to make a user wait 10-15 seconds for a single page to render.
Also, always minimize the polling and the need to poll(simultaneously fired Ajax events, as not all browsers actually do good things with them). For instance, instead of doing something like sending one request to get content and sending another for that content to be tracked as viewed in your app metrics, do as many tasks at server level as you possibly can!
Of course, you probably want to track your errors properly, so your Xhr object from your library of choice implement error handling for ajax and because you are an awesome developer you want to make use of them.
so say you have a try - catch block in place
The scenario is this:
An Ajax call has finished and it's supposed to return a JSON, but the call somehow failed. However, you try to parse the JSON and do whatever you need to do with it.
so
function onAjaxSuccess (ajaxResponse) {
try {
var yourObj = JSON.parse(ajaxRespose);
} catch (err) {
// Now I've actually seen this on a number of occasions, to log that an error occur
// a lot of developers will attempt to send yet another ajax request to log the
// failure of the previous one.
// for these reasons, workers exist.
myProject.worker.message('preferrably a pre-determined error code should go here');
// Then only the worker should again throttle and poll the ajax requests that log the
//specific error.
};
};
While I have seen various implementations that try to fire as many Xhr requests at the same time as they possible can until they encounter browser limitations, then do quite a good job at stalling the ones that haven't fired in wait for the browser 'cooldown', what I can advise you is to think about the following:
How important is speed for your app?
Just how scalable and how intensive the I/O will be?
If the answer to the first one is 'very' and to the latter 'OMFG modern technology', then try to optimize your code and architecture as much as you can so that you never need to send 10 simultaneous Xhr requests. Also, for large scale apps, multi-thread your processes. The JavaScript way to accomplish that is by using workers. Or you could call the ECMA board, tell them to make this a default, and then post it here so that the rest of us JS devs can enjoy native multi-threading in JS:)(how dafuq did they not think about this?!?!)
Stefan, quick answers below:
-if it's "max. number of requests n per x seconds", what are the usual/default settings for x and n?
This sounds more like a server restriction. The browser ones usually sound like:
-"the maximum requests for the same hostname is x"
-"the maximum connections for ANY hostname is y"
-Is there any way good resource for this?
http://www.browserscope.org/?category=network (also hover over table headers to see what is measured)
http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2008/03/20/roundup-on-parallel-connections
-Any way to detect if a request has been "delayed" or "rejected" because of a rate limit?
You could look at the http headers for "Connection: close" to detect server restrictions but I am not aware of being able in JavaScript to read settings from so many browsers in a consistent, browser-independent way. (For Firefox, you could read this http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/746848)
Hope this quick answer helps?
No, browser does not in any way affect polling. I think what was meant on that page is the same origin policy - you can only access the same host and port as your original page.
Only known limitation to connections themselves is that you usually can only have from two to four simultaneous connections to the same host.
I've written some apps with long poll, some with C++ backend with my own webserver, and one with PHP backend with Apache2.
My long poll timeout is 4..10 s. When something occurs, or 4..10 s passes, my server returns an empty response. Then the client immediatelly starts another AJAX request. I found that some browsers hangs up when I start AJAX call from previous AJAX handler, so I am using setTimeout() with a small value to start the next AJAX request.
When something happens on the client side, which should be sent to server, I use another AJAX request for it, but it's a one-way thing: the server does not send any response, and the client does not process anything. The result of the operation (if any) will be received on the long poll. It requires max. 2 connection to the server, which all browsers supports.
Keep in mind, that if there's 500 client, it means 500 server-side webserver thread, which will move together, occurring load peaks, because when something happens, the server have to report it at the same time for each clients, the clients will process it near same time long, they will start the next long request in the same time, and from then, the timeout will expire also at the same time, and furthcoming ones too. You can trick with rnd timeout, say 4 rnd(0..4), but it's worthless, if anything happens, they will "sync" again, all the request have to be served at the same time, when something reportable happens.
I've tested it thru a router, and it works. I assume, routers respects 4..10 lag, it's around the speed of a slow webapge (far, far away), which no router think, that it should be canceled.
My PHP work is a collaborative spreadsheet, it looks amazing when you hit enter and the stuff is updating simultaneously in several browsers. Have fun!
No limit for no of ajax requests. However it will be on same host & port.
Server can limit no of request from a machine based on its setting.
For example. A server can set so that if there are more than few request from same machine within specified time it will reject request.
After small mistake in javascript code, neverending loop was made witch each step calling 2 ajax requests. In firebug i could see more and more requests until firefox started to slow down, dont response and finally crash.
So, yes, there is a "limit" ;)
I'm using the autocomplete component from richfaces. (the mode has to be ajax).
I have the following requirement: after the user types something in it the request should no go directly to the server, instead it should wait a period of, lets say 500 ms, before the autocomplete method gets called. This is to prevent ajax flooding (for example if the user types fast 3 chars it will only make one request to the server instead of 3).
Basically I want the autocomplete method to get invoked only if 500 ms have passed from the last keystroke.
Of course this could be solved by using an a4j:queue, the problem is that the suggestions list always appears and the autocomplete method always get invoked regardless of what I use to prevent it (attaching an a4j:queue or setting frequency, eventsQueue & requestDelay attributes).
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
The frequency tag you mentioned is the way to do it. It is defined as: Delay (in seconds) before activating the suggestion pop-up. Default value is 400ms.
If you're setting your frequency to 500ms that is still too short: the user can type more than 1 characters in that time period, which is probably causing your ajax flood.
I suggest you set the frequency to 1000 or better yet 2000.
What is the best way deal with out-of-sequence Ajax requests (preferably using a jQuery)?
For example, an Ajax request is sent from the user's browser anytime a field changes. A user may change dog_name to "Fluffy", but a moment later, she changes it to "Spot". The first request is delayed for whatever reason, so it arrives at the server after the second, and her dog ends up being called "Fluffy" instead of "Spot".
I could pass along a client-side timestamp along with each request, and have the server track it as part of each Dog record and disregard earlier requests to change the same field (but only if there is a difference of less than 5 minutes, in case the user changes the time on her machine).
Is this approach sufficiently robust, or is there a better, more standardized approach?
EDIT:
Matt made a great point in his comment. It's much better to serialize requests to change the same field, so is there a standard way of implementing Ajax request queues?
EDIT #2
In response to #cherouvim's comment, I don't think I'd have to lock the form. The field changes to reflect the user's change, a change request is placed into the queue. If a request to change the same field is waiting in the queue, delete that old request. 2 things I still would have to address:
Placing a request into the queue is an asynchronous task. I could have the callback handler from the previous Ajax request send the next request in the queue. Javascript code isn't multi-threaded (or... is it?)
If a request fails, I would need the user interface to reflect the state of the last successful request. So, if the user changes the dog's name to "Spot" and the Ajax request fails, the field would have to be set back to "Fluffy" (the last value successfully committed).
What issues am I missing?
First of all you need to serialize server side processing for each client. If you are programming in Java then synchronizing execution on the http session object is sufficient. Serializing will help in case the second update comes while the first is being processed.
A second enhancement you can implement in your entity updating is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimistic_concurrency_control. You add a version property (and column) for your entity. Each time an update happens this is incremented once. In fact the update statement looks like:
update ... set version=6 ... where id=? and version=5;
If affected rows from above pseudoquery query are 0 then someone else has managed to update the entity first. What you do then is up to you. Note that you need to be rendering the version on the html update form of the entity as a hidden parameter and sending it back to the server each time you update. On return you have to write back the updated version.
Generally the first enhancement would be enough. The second one will improve the system in case many people are editing the same entities at the same time. It solves the "lost update" problem.
I would implement a queue on the client side with chaining of successful requests or rollbacks on unsuccessful requests.
You need to define "unsuccessful", be it a timeout or a returned value.