How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
I have a function foo
which makes an Ajax request. How can I return the response from foo
?
I tried returning the value from the success
callback as well as assigning the response to a local variable inside the function and returning that one, but none of those ways actually return the response.
function foo() {
var result;
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result = response;
// return response; // <- I tried that one as well
}
});
return result;
}
var result = foo(); // It always ends up being `undefined`.
javascript ajax asynchronous ecmascript-6 ecmascript-2017
|
show 6 more comments
I have a function foo
which makes an Ajax request. How can I return the response from foo
?
I tried returning the value from the success
callback as well as assigning the response to a local variable inside the function and returning that one, but none of those ways actually return the response.
function foo() {
var result;
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result = response;
// return response; // <- I tried that one as well
}
});
return result;
}
var result = foo(); // It always ends up being `undefined`.
javascript ajax asynchronous ecmascript-6 ecmascript-2017
28
@MaximShoustin I've added a JavaScript only answer (no jQuery) but like Felix said - "How do I return the response from an AJAX call" is really a nice way to say "How does concurrency work in JavaScript". Not to mention Angular's$http
is very similar to jQuery's$.ajax
anyway with some minor differences (like interoping with the digest cycle).
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Dec 22 '13 at 21:42
134
Do not useasync: false
. It will freeze the browser and drive users away. Read blog.slaks.net/2015-01-04/async-method-patterns to learn how to work with asynchronous operations.
– SLaks
Jul 6 '15 at 17:22
9
It is possible like You did this by ading async: false as attribute of first parameter. See my answer below. @tvanfosson gave this solution on Stackoverflow.
– arrowman
Jan 29 '16 at 12:26
7
this mey help you codingbin.com/get-return-data-ajax-call
– Manoj Kumar
Mar 16 '16 at 10:09
7
@SLaks Someone please relay that to the website "rock star developers" at AirAsia.com. That's a great live case study (enhanced by the ajax calls taking a couple of seconds) of why never to use async: false.
– Mâtt Frëëman
Jul 6 '17 at 13:35
|
show 6 more comments
I have a function foo
which makes an Ajax request. How can I return the response from foo
?
I tried returning the value from the success
callback as well as assigning the response to a local variable inside the function and returning that one, but none of those ways actually return the response.
function foo() {
var result;
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result = response;
// return response; // <- I tried that one as well
}
});
return result;
}
var result = foo(); // It always ends up being `undefined`.
javascript ajax asynchronous ecmascript-6 ecmascript-2017
I have a function foo
which makes an Ajax request. How can I return the response from foo
?
I tried returning the value from the success
callback as well as assigning the response to a local variable inside the function and returning that one, but none of those ways actually return the response.
function foo() {
var result;
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result = response;
// return response; // <- I tried that one as well
}
});
return result;
}
var result = foo(); // It always ends up being `undefined`.
javascript ajax asynchronous ecmascript-6 ecmascript-2017
javascript ajax asynchronous ecmascript-6 ecmascript-2017
edited Mar 15 '18 at 5:12
Ry-♦
167k38339359
167k38339359
asked Jan 8 '13 at 17:06
Felix KlingFelix Kling
548k126849909
548k126849909
28
@MaximShoustin I've added a JavaScript only answer (no jQuery) but like Felix said - "How do I return the response from an AJAX call" is really a nice way to say "How does concurrency work in JavaScript". Not to mention Angular's$http
is very similar to jQuery's$.ajax
anyway with some minor differences (like interoping with the digest cycle).
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Dec 22 '13 at 21:42
134
Do not useasync: false
. It will freeze the browser and drive users away. Read blog.slaks.net/2015-01-04/async-method-patterns to learn how to work with asynchronous operations.
– SLaks
Jul 6 '15 at 17:22
9
It is possible like You did this by ading async: false as attribute of first parameter. See my answer below. @tvanfosson gave this solution on Stackoverflow.
– arrowman
Jan 29 '16 at 12:26
7
this mey help you codingbin.com/get-return-data-ajax-call
– Manoj Kumar
Mar 16 '16 at 10:09
7
@SLaks Someone please relay that to the website "rock star developers" at AirAsia.com. That's a great live case study (enhanced by the ajax calls taking a couple of seconds) of why never to use async: false.
– Mâtt Frëëman
Jul 6 '17 at 13:35
|
show 6 more comments
28
@MaximShoustin I've added a JavaScript only answer (no jQuery) but like Felix said - "How do I return the response from an AJAX call" is really a nice way to say "How does concurrency work in JavaScript". Not to mention Angular's$http
is very similar to jQuery's$.ajax
anyway with some minor differences (like interoping with the digest cycle).
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Dec 22 '13 at 21:42
134
Do not useasync: false
. It will freeze the browser and drive users away. Read blog.slaks.net/2015-01-04/async-method-patterns to learn how to work with asynchronous operations.
– SLaks
Jul 6 '15 at 17:22
9
It is possible like You did this by ading async: false as attribute of first parameter. See my answer below. @tvanfosson gave this solution on Stackoverflow.
– arrowman
Jan 29 '16 at 12:26
7
this mey help you codingbin.com/get-return-data-ajax-call
– Manoj Kumar
Mar 16 '16 at 10:09
7
@SLaks Someone please relay that to the website "rock star developers" at AirAsia.com. That's a great live case study (enhanced by the ajax calls taking a couple of seconds) of why never to use async: false.
– Mâtt Frëëman
Jul 6 '17 at 13:35
28
28
@MaximShoustin I've added a JavaScript only answer (no jQuery) but like Felix said - "How do I return the response from an AJAX call" is really a nice way to say "How does concurrency work in JavaScript". Not to mention Angular's
$http
is very similar to jQuery's $.ajax
anyway with some minor differences (like interoping with the digest cycle).– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Dec 22 '13 at 21:42
@MaximShoustin I've added a JavaScript only answer (no jQuery) but like Felix said - "How do I return the response from an AJAX call" is really a nice way to say "How does concurrency work in JavaScript". Not to mention Angular's
$http
is very similar to jQuery's $.ajax
anyway with some minor differences (like interoping with the digest cycle).– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Dec 22 '13 at 21:42
134
134
Do not use
async: false
. It will freeze the browser and drive users away. Read blog.slaks.net/2015-01-04/async-method-patterns to learn how to work with asynchronous operations.– SLaks
Jul 6 '15 at 17:22
Do not use
async: false
. It will freeze the browser and drive users away. Read blog.slaks.net/2015-01-04/async-method-patterns to learn how to work with asynchronous operations.– SLaks
Jul 6 '15 at 17:22
9
9
It is possible like You did this by ading async: false as attribute of first parameter. See my answer below. @tvanfosson gave this solution on Stackoverflow.
– arrowman
Jan 29 '16 at 12:26
It is possible like You did this by ading async: false as attribute of first parameter. See my answer below. @tvanfosson gave this solution on Stackoverflow.
– arrowman
Jan 29 '16 at 12:26
7
7
this mey help you codingbin.com/get-return-data-ajax-call
– Manoj Kumar
Mar 16 '16 at 10:09
this mey help you codingbin.com/get-return-data-ajax-call
– Manoj Kumar
Mar 16 '16 at 10:09
7
7
@SLaks Someone please relay that to the website "rock star developers" at AirAsia.com. That's a great live case study (enhanced by the ajax calls taking a couple of seconds) of why never to use async: false.
– Mâtt Frëëman
Jul 6 '17 at 13:35
@SLaks Someone please relay that to the website "rock star developers" at AirAsia.com. That's a great live case study (enhanced by the ajax calls taking a couple of seconds) of why never to use async: false.
– Mâtt Frëëman
Jul 6 '17 at 13:35
|
show 6 more comments
33 Answers
33
active
oldest
votes
1 2
next
→ For a more general explanation of async behaviour with different examples, please see Why is my variable unaltered after I modify it inside of a function? - Asynchronous code reference
→ If you already understand the problem, skip to the possible solutions below.
The problem
The A in Ajax stands for asynchronous . That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, $.ajax
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
Here is an analogy which hopefully makes the difference between synchronous and asynchronous flow clearer:
Synchronous
Imagine you make a phone call to a friend and ask him to look something up for you. Although it might take a while, you wait on the phone and stare into space, until your friend gives you the answer that you needed.
The same is happening when you make a function call containing "normal" code:
function findItem() {
var item;
while(item_not_found) {
// search
}
return item;
}
var item = findItem();
// Do something with item
doSomethingElse();
Even though findItem
might take a long time to execute, any code coming after var item = findItem();
has to wait until the function returns the result.
Asynchronous
You call your friend again for the same reason. But this time you tell him that you are in a hurry and he should call you back on your mobile phone. You hang up, leave the house and do whatever you planned to do. Once your friend calls you back, you are dealing with the information he gave to you.
That's exactly what's happening when you do an Ajax request.
findItem(function(item) {
// Do something with item
});
doSomethingElse();
Instead of waiting for the response, the execution continues immediately and the statement after the Ajax call is executed. To get the response eventually, you provide a function to be called once the response was received, a callback (notice something? call back ?). Any statement coming after that call is executed before the callback is called.
Solution(s)
Embrace the asynchronous nature of JavaScript! While certain asynchronous operations provide synchronous counterparts (so does "Ajax"), it's generally discouraged to use them, especially in a browser context.
Why is it bad do you ask?
JavaScript runs in the UI thread of the browser and any long running process will lock the UI, making it unresponsive. Additionally, there is an upper limit on the execution time for JavaScript and the browser will ask the user whether to continue the execution or not.
All of this is really bad user experience. The user won't be able to tell whether everything is working fine or not. Furthermore, the effect will be worse for users with a slow connection.
In the following we will look at three different solutions that are all building on top of each other:
Promises withasync/await
(ES2017+, available in older browsers if you use a transpiler or regenerator)
Callbacks (popular in node)
Promises withthen()
(ES2015+, available in older browsers if you use one of the many promise libraries)
All three are available in current browsers, and node 7+.
ES2017+: Promises with async/await
The ECMAScript version released in 2017 introduced syntax-level support for asynchronous functions. With the help of async
and await
, you can write asynchronous in a "synchronous style". The code is still asynchronous, but it's easier to read/understand.
async/await
builds on top of promises: an async
function always returns a promise. await
"unwraps" a promise and either result in the value the promise was resolved with or throws an error if the promise was rejected.
Important: You can only use await
inside an async
function. Right now, top-level await
isn't yet supported, so you might have to make an async IIFE to start an async
context.
You can read more about async
and await
on MDN.
Here is an example that builds on top of delay above:
// Using 'superagent' which will return a promise.
var superagent = require('superagent')
// This is isn't declared as `async` because it already returns a promise
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
async function getAllBooks() {
try {
// GET a list of book IDs of the current user
var bookIDs = await superagent.get('/user/books');
// wait for 3 seconds (just for the sake of this example)
await delay();
// GET information about each book
return await superagent.get('/books/ids='+JSON.stringify(bookIDs));
} catch(error) {
// If any of the awaited promises was rejected, this catch block
// would catch the rejection reason
return null;
}
}
// Start an IIFE to use `await` at the top level
(async function(){
let books = await getAllBooks();
console.log(books);
})();
Current browser and node versions support async/await
. You can also support older environments by transforming your code to ES5 with the help of regenerator (or tools that use regenerator, such as Babel).
Let functions accept callbacks
A callback is simply a function passed to another function. That other function can call the function passed whenever it is ready. In the context of an asynchronous process, the callback will be called whenever the asynchronous process is done. Usually, the result is passed to the callback.
In the example of the question, you can make foo
accept a callback and use it as success
callback. So this
var result = foo();
// Code that depends on 'result'
becomes
foo(function(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
});
Here we defined the function "inline" but you can pass any function reference:
function myCallback(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
}
foo(myCallback);
foo
itself is defined as follows:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: callback
});
}
callback
will refer to the function we pass to foo
when we call it and we simply pass it on to success
. I.e. once the Ajax request is successful, $.ajax
will call callback
and pass the response to the callback (which can be referred to with result
, since this is how we defined the callback).
You can also process the response before passing it to the callback:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: function(response) {
// For example, filter the response
callback(filtered_response);
}
});
}
It's easier to write code using callbacks than it may seem. After all, JavaScript in the browser is heavily event-driven (DOM events). Receiving the Ajax response is nothing else but an event.
Difficulties could arise when you have to work with third-party code, but most problems can be solved by just thinking through the application flow.
ES2015+: Promises with then()
The Promise API is a new feature of ECMAScript 6 (ES2015), but it has good browser support already. There are also many libraries which implement the standard Promises API and provide additional methods to ease the use and composition of asynchronous functions (e.g. bluebird).
Promises are containers for future values. When the promise receives the value (it is resolved) or when it is cancelled (rejected), it notifies all of its "listeners" who want to access this value.
The advantage over plain callbacks is that they allow you to decouple your code and they are easier to compose.
Here is a simple example of using a promise:
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
delay()
.then(function(v) { // `delay` returns a promise
console.log(v); // Log the value once it is resolved
})
.catch(function(v) {
// Or do something else if it is rejected
// (it would not happen in this example, since `reject` is not called).
});
Applied to our Ajax call we could use promises like this:
function ajax(url) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.onload = function() {
resolve(this.responseText);
};
xhr.onerror = reject;
xhr.open('GET', url);
xhr.send();
});
}
ajax("/echo/json")
.then(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
})
.catch(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Describing all the advantages that promise offer is beyond the scope of this answer, but if you write new code, you should seriously consider them. They provide a great abstraction and separation of your code.
More information about promises: HTML5 rocks - JavaScript Promises
Side note: jQuery's deferred objects
Deferred objects are jQuery's custom implementation of promises (before the Promise API was standardized). They behave almost like promises but expose a slightly different API.
Every Ajax method of jQuery already returns a "deferred object" (actually a promise of a deferred object) which you can just return from your function:
function ajax() {
return $.ajax(...);
}
ajax().done(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
}).fail(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Side note: Promise gotchas
Keep in mind that promises and deferred objects are just containers for a future value, they are not the value itself. For example, suppose you had the following:
function checkPassword() {
return $.ajax({
url: '/password',
data: {
username: $('#username').val(),
password: $('#password').val()
},
type: 'POST',
dataType: 'json'
});
}
if (checkPassword()) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
}
This code misunderstands the above asynchrony issues. Specifically, $.ajax()
doesn't freeze the code while it checks the '/password' page on your server - it sends a request to the server and while it waits, immediately returns a jQuery Ajax Deferred object, not the response from the server. That means the if
statement is going to always get this Deferred object, treat it as true
, and proceed as though the user is logged in. Not good.
But the fix is easy:
checkPassword()
.done(function(r) {
if (r) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
} else {
// Tell the user their password was bad
}
})
.fail(function(x) {
// Tell the user something bad happened
});
Not recommended: Synchronous "Ajax" calls
As I mentioned, some(!) asynchronous operations have synchronous counterparts. I don't advocate their use, but for completeness' sake, here is how you would perform a synchronous call:
Without jQuery
If you directly use a XMLHTTPRequest
object, pass false
as third argument to .open
.
jQuery
If you use jQuery, you can set the async
option to false
. Note that this option is deprecated since jQuery 1.8.
You can then either still use a success
callback or access the responseText
property of the jqXHR object:
function foo() {
var jqXHR = $.ajax({
//...
async: false
});
return jqXHR.responseText;
}
If you use any other jQuery Ajax method, such as $.get
, $.getJSON
, etc., you have to change it to $.ajax
(since you can only pass configuration parameters to $.ajax
).
Heads up! It is not possible to make a synchronous JSONP request. JSONP by its very nature is always asynchronous (one more reason to not even consider this option).
61
@Pommy: If you want to use jQuery, you have to include it. Please refer to docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:Getting_Started_with_jQuery.
– Felix Kling
Jan 17 '13 at 10:47
5
In Solution 1, sub jQuery, I could not understand this line:If you use any other jQuery AJAX method, such as $.get, $.getJSON, etc., you have them to $.ajax.
(Yes, I realize my nick is a tad ironic in this case)
– gibberish
Feb 6 '13 at 21:07
23
@gibberish: Mmmh, I don't know how it can be made clearer. Do you see howfoo
is called and a function is passed to it (foo(function(result) {....});
)?result
is used inside this function and is the response of the Ajax request. To refer to this function, the first parameter of foo is calledcallback
and assigned tosuccess
instead of an anonymous function. So,$.ajax
will callcallback
when the request was successful. I tried to explain it a bit more.
– Felix Kling
Feb 6 '13 at 23:29
33
The Chat for this question is dead so I'm not sure where to propose outlined changes, but I propose: 1) Change the synchronous part to a simple discussion of why it's bad with no code example of how to do it. 2) Remove/merge the callback examples to only show the more flexible Deferred approach, which I think may also be a little easier to follow for those learning Javascript.
– Chris Moschini
Apr 16 '13 at 2:45
10
@Jessi: I think you misunderstood that part of the answer. You cannot use$.getJSON
if you want the Ajax request to be synchronous. However, you should not event want the request to be synchronous, so that doesn't apply. You should be using callbacks or promises to handle the response, as it is explained earlier in the answer.
– Felix Kling
Oct 8 '15 at 17:44
|
show 31 more comments
If you're not using jQuery in your code, this answer is for you
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
return httpRequest.responseText;
}
var result = foo(); // always ends up being 'undefined'
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery for AJAX, I've decided to provide an alternative for people who aren't.
(Note, for those using the new fetch
API, Angular or promises I've added another answer below)
What you're facing
This is a short summary of "Explanation of the problem" from the other answer, if you're not sure after reading this, read that.
The A in AJAX stands for asynchronous. That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, .send
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
This means when you're returning, the listener you've defined did not execute yet, which means the value you're returning has not been defined.
Here is a simple analogy
function getFive(){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
},10);
return a;
}
(Fiddle)
The value of a
returned is undefined
since the a=5
part has not executed yet. AJAX acts like this, you're returning the value before the server got the chance to tell your browser what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed.
function onComplete(a){ // When the code completes, do this
alert(a);
}
function getFive(whenDone){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
whenDone(a);
},10);
}
This is called CPS. Basically, we're passing getFive
an action to perform when it completes, we're telling our code how to react when an event completes (like our AJAX call, or in this case the timeout).
Usage would be:
getFive(onComplete);
Which should alert "5" to the screen. (Fiddle).
Possible solutions
There are basically two ways how to solve this:
- Make the AJAX call synchronous (lets call it SJAX).
- Restructure your code to work properly with callbacks.
1. Synchronous AJAX - Don't do it!!
As for synchronous AJAX, don't do it! Felix's answer raises some compelling arguments about why it's a bad idea. To sum it up, it'll freeze the user's browser until the server returns the response and create a very bad user experience. Here is another short summary taken from MDN on why:
XMLHttpRequest supports both synchronous and asynchronous communications. In general, however, asynchronous requests should be preferred to synchronous requests for performance reasons.
In short, synchronous requests block the execution of code... ...this can cause serious issues...
If you have to do it, you can pass a flag: Here is how:
var request = new XMLHttpRequest();
request.open('GET', 'yourURL', false); // `false` makes the request synchronous
request.send(null);
if (request.status === 200) {// That's HTTP for 'ok'
console.log(request.responseText);
}
2. Restructure code
Let your function accept a callback. In the example code foo
can be made to accept a callback. We'll be telling our code how to react when foo
completes.
So:
var result = foo();
// code that depends on `result` goes here
Becomes:
foo(function(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
});
Here we passed an anonymous function, but we could just as easily pass a reference to an existing function, making it look like:
function myHandler(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
}
foo(myHandler);
For more details on how this sort of callback design is done, check Felix's answer.
Now, let's define foo itself to act accordingly
function foo(callback) {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.onload = function(){ // when the request is loaded
callback(httpRequest.responseText);// we're calling our method
};
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
}
(fiddle)
We have now made our foo function accept an action to run when the AJAX completes successfully, we can extend this further by checking if the response status is not 200 and acting accordingly (create a fail handler and such). Effectively solving our issue.
If you're still having a hard time understanding this read the AJAX getting started guide at MDN.
11
"synchronous requests block the execution of code and can leak memory and events" how can a synchronous request leak memory?
– Matthew G
Aug 16 '13 at 5:54
6
@MatthewG I've added a bounty on it in this question, I'll see what I can fish out. I'm removing the quote from the answer in the mean time.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 16 '13 at 8:28
11
Just for the reference, XHR 2 allows us to use theonload
handler, which only fires whenreadyState
is4
. Of course, it's not supported in IE8. (iirc, may need confirmation.)
– Florian Margaine
Dec 22 '13 at 21:09
5
Your explanation of how to pass an anonymous function as a callback is valid but misleading. The example var bar = foo(); is asking for a variable to be defined, whereas your suggested foo(functim() {}); doesn't define bar
– Robbie Averill
Aug 7 '14 at 10:14
@BenjaminGruenbaum How do I return the content ofresult
in a variable that I can use somewhere else in my code rather than printing it with html?
– MorganFR
Nov 8 '16 at 15:39
|
show 1 more comment
XMLHttpRequest 2 (first of all read the answers from Benjamin Gruenbaum & Felix Kling)
If you don't use jQuery and want a nice short XMLHttpRequest 2 which works on the modern browsers and also on the mobile browsers I suggest to use it this way:
function ajax(a, b, c){ // URL, callback, just a placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send()
}
As you can see:
- It's shorter than all other functions Listed.
- The callback is set directly (so no extra unnecessary closures).
- It uses the new onload (so you don't have to check for readystate && status)
- There are some other situations which I don't remember that make the XMLHttpRequest 1 annoying.
There are two ways to get the response of this Ajax call (three using the XMLHttpRequest var name):
The simplest:
this.response
Or if for some reason you bind()
the callback to a class:
e.target.response
Example:
function callback(e){
console.log(this.response);
}
ajax('URL', callback);
Or (the above one is better anonymous functions are always a problem):
ajax('URL', function(e){console.log(this.response)});
Nothing easier.
Now some people will probably say that it's better to use onreadystatechange or the even the XMLHttpRequest variable name. That's wrong.
Check out XMLHttpRequest advanced features
It supported all *modern browsers. And I can confirm as I'm using this approach since XMLHttpRequest 2 exists. I never had any type of problem on all browsers I use.
onreadystatechange is only useful if you want to get the headers on state 2.
Using the XMLHttpRequest
variable name is another big error as you need to execute the callback inside the onload/oreadystatechange closures else you lost it.
Now if you want something more complex using post and FormData you can easily extend this function:
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val},placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send(d||null)
}
Again ... it's a very short function, but it does get & post.
Examples of usage:
x(url, callback); // By default it's get so no need to set
x(url, callback, 'post', {'key': 'val'}); // No need to set post data
Or pass a full form element (document.getElementsByTagName('form')[0]
):
var fd = new FormData(form);
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
Or set some custom values:
var fd = new FormData();
fd.append('key', 'val')
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
As you can see I didn't implement sync... it's a bad thing.
Having said that ... why don't do it the easy way?
As mentioned in the comment the use of error && synchronous does completely break the point of the answer. Which is a nice short way to use Ajax in the proper way?
Error handler
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val}, placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.onerror = error;
c.send(d||null)
}
function error(e){
console.log('--Error--', this.type);
console.log('this: ', this);
console.log('Event: ', e)
}
function displayAjax(e){
console.log(e, this);
}
x('WRONGURL', displayAjax);
In the above script, you have an error handler which is statically defined so it does not compromise the function. The error handler can be used for other functions too.
But to really get out an error the only way is to write a wrong URL in which case every browser throws an error.
Error handlers are maybe useful if you set custom headers, set the responseType to blob array buffer or whatever...
Even if you pass 'POSTAPAPAP' as the method it won't throw an error.
Even if you pass 'fdggdgilfdghfldj' as formdata it won't throw an error.
In the first case the error is inside the displayAjax()
under this.statusText
as Method not Allowed
.
In the second case, it simply works. You have to check at the server side if you passed the right post data.
cross-domain not allowed throws error automatically.
In the error response, there are no error codes.
There is only the this.type
which is set to error.
Why add an error handler if you totally have no control over errors?
Most of the errors are returned inside this in the callback function displayAjax()
.
So: No need for error checks if you're able to copy and paste the URL properly. ;)
PS: As the first test I wrote x('x', displayAjax)..., and it totally got a response...??? So I checked the folder where the HTML is located, and there was a file called 'x.xml'. So even if you forget the extension of your file XMLHttpRequest 2 WILL FIND IT. I LOL'd
Read a file synchronous
Don't do that.
If you want to block the browser for a while load a nice big .txt
file synchronous.
function omg(a, c){ // URL
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a, true);
c.send();
return c; // Or c.response
}
Now you can do
var res = omg('thisIsGonnaBlockThePage.txt');
There is no other way to do this in a non-asynchronous way. (Yeah, with setTimeout loop... but seriously?)
Another point is... if you work with APIs or just your own list's files or whatever you always use different functions for each request...
Only if you have a page where you load always the same XML/JSON or whatever you need only one function. In that case, modify a little the Ajax function and replace b with your special function.
The functions above are for basic use.
If you want to EXTEND the function...
Yes, you can.
I'm using a lot of APIs and one of the first functions I integrate into every HTML page is the first Ajax function in this answer, with GET only...
But you can do a lot of stuff with XMLHttpRequest 2:
I made a download manager (using ranges on both sides with resume, filereader, filesystem), various image resizers converters using canvas, populate web SQL databases with base64images and much more... But in these cases you should create a function only for that purpose... sometimes you need a blob, array buffers, you can set headers, override mimetype and there is a lot more...
But the question here is how to return an Ajax response... (I added an easy way.)
11
While this answer is nice (And we all love XHR2 and posting file data and multipart data is totally awesome) - this shows syntactic sugar for posting XHR with JavaScript - you might want to put this in a blog post (I'd like it) or even in a library (not sure about the namex
,ajax
orxhr
might be nicer :)). I don't see how it addresses returning the response from an AJAX call. (someone could still dovar res = x("url")
and not understand why it doesn't work ;)). On a side note - it would be cool if you returnedc
from the method so users can hook onerror
etc.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 5:56
21
2.ajax is meant to be async.. so NO var res=x('url')..
That's the entire point of this question and answers :)
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 17:28
2
why is there a 'c' parameter in the functions, if on the first line you're overwriting whatever value it had? am i missing something?
– Brian H.
Dec 21 '16 at 10:00
1
You can use parameters as a placeholder to avoid writing multiple times "var"
– cocco
Dec 21 '16 at 11:05
6
@cocco So you wrote misleading, unreadable code in a SO answer in order to save a few keystrokes? Please don't do that.
– stone
Oct 8 '17 at 6:20
|
show 1 more comment
If you're using promises, this answer is for you.
This means AngularJS, jQuery (with deferred), native XHR's replacement (fetch), EmberJS, BackboneJS's save or any node library that returns promises.
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var data;
// or $.get(...).then, or request(...).then, or query(...).then
fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
data = response.json();
});
return data;
}
var result = foo(); // result is always undefined no matter what.
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery with callbacks for AJAX. I have an answer for native XHR. This answer is for generic usage of promises either on the frontend or backend.
The core issue
The JavaScript concurrency model in the browser and on the server with NodeJS/io.js is asynchronous and reactive.
Whenever you call a method that returns a promise, the then
handlers are always executed asynchronously - that is, after the code below them that is not in a .then
handler.
This means when you're returning data
the then
handler you've defined did not execute yet. This in turn means that the value you're returning has not been set to the correct value in time.
Here is a simple analogy for the issue:
function getFive(){
var data;
setTimeout(function(){ // set a timer for one second in the future
data = 5; // after a second, do this
}, 1000);
return data;
}
document.body.innerHTML = getFive(); // `undefined` here and not 5
The value of data
is undefined
since the data = 5
part has not executed yet. It will likely execute in a second but by that time it is irrelevant to the returned value.
Since the operation did not happen yet (AJAX, server call, IO, timer) you're returning the value before the request got the chance to tell your code what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed. Promises actively enable this by being temporal (time-sensitive) in nature.
Quick recap on promises
A Promise is a value over time. Promises have state, they start as pending with no value and can settle to:
fulfilled meaning that the computation completed successfully.
rejected meaning that the computation failed.
A promise can only change states once after which it will always stay at the same state forever. You can attach then
handlers to promises to extract their value and handle errors. then
handlers allow chaining of calls. Promises are created by using APIs that return them. For example, the more modern AJAX replacement fetch
or jQuery's $.get
return promises.
When we call .then
on a promise and return something from it - we get a promise for the processed value. If we return another promise we'll get amazing things, but let's hold our horses.
With promises
Let's see how we can solve the above issue with promises. First, let's demonstrate our understanding of promise states from above by using the Promise constructor for creating a delay function:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
Now, after we converted setTimeout to use promises, we can use then
to make it count:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
function getFive(){
// we're RETURNING the promise, remember, a promise is a wrapper over our value
return delay(100).then(function(){ // when the promise is ready
return 5; // return the value 5, promises are all about return values
})
}
// we _have_ to wrap it like this in the call site, we can't access the plain value
getFive().then(function(five){
document.body.innerHTML = five;
});
Basically, instead of returning a value which we can't do because of the concurrency model - we're returning a wrapper for a value that we can unwrap with then
. It's like a box you can open with then
.
Applying this
This stands the same for your original API call, you can:
function foo() {
// RETURN the promise
return fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
return response.json(); // process it inside the `then`
});
}
foo().then(function(response){
// access the value inside the `then`
})
So this works just as well. We've learned we can't return values from already asynchronous calls but we can use promises and chain them to perform processing. We now know how to return the response from an asynchronous call.
ES2015 (ES6)
ES6 introduces generators which are functions that can return in the middle and then resume the point they were at. This is typically useful for sequences, for example:
function* foo(){ // notice the star, this is ES6 so new browsers/node/io only
yield 1;
yield 2;
while(true) yield 3;
}
Is a function that returns an iterator over the sequence 1,2,3,3,3,3,....
which can be iterated. While this is interesting on its own and opens room for a lot of possibility there is one particular interesting case.
If the sequence we're producing is a sequence of actions rather than numbers - we can pause the function whenever an action is yielded and wait for it before we resume the function. So instead of a sequence of numbers, we need a sequence of future values - that is: promises.
This somewhat tricky but very powerful trick lets us write asynchronous code in a synchronous manner. There are several "runners" that do this for you, writing one is a short few lines of code but is beyond the scope of this answer. I'll be using Bluebird's Promise.coroutine
here, but there are other wrappers like co
or Q.async
.
var foo = coroutine(function*(){
var data = yield fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the yield
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
});
This method returns a promise itself, which we can consume from other coroutines. For example:
var main = coroutine(function*(){
var bar = yield foo(); // wait our earlier coroutine, it returns a promise
// server call done here, code below executes when done
var baz = yield fetch("/api/users/"+bar.userid); // depends on foo's result
console.log(baz); // runs after both requests done
});
main();
ES2016 (ES7)
In ES7, this is further standardized, there are several proposals right now but in all of them you can await
promise. This is just "sugar" (nicer syntax) for the ES6 proposal above by adding the async
and await
keywords. Making the above example:
async function foo(){
var data = await fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the await
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
}
It still returns a promise just the same :)
18
ES 2016 looks like the final solution to this problem once and for all.
– ShrekOverflow
May 12 '15 at 16:42
10
The absolutely final solution, for once and for all? What about the totally absolutely final solution, for once and for all plus one?
– Shmiddty
May 13 '15 at 6:11
3
@recurf first of all "where the hell" is hardly appropriate for this site (kids are using it too, for one). Second of all - it's a function parameter, I could have named it anywhere else and it would work just as fine.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jan 20 '17 at 0:08
@TDR byawait
ing with async/await or with athen
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jul 17 '18 at 18:45
add a comment |
You are using Ajax incorrectly. The idea is not to have it return anything, but instead hand off the data to something called a callback function, which handles the data.
That is:
function handleData( responseData ) {
// Do what you want with the data
console.log(responseData);
}
$.ajax({
url: "hi.php",
...
success: function ( data, status, XHR ) {
handleData(data);
}
});
Returning anything in the submit handler will not do anything. You must instead either hand off the data, or do what you want with it directly inside the success function.
9
This answer is completely semantic... your success method is just a callback within a callback. You could just havesuccess: handleData
and it would work.
– Jacques
Jan 4 '16 at 15:49
3
And what if you want to return the "responseData" outside of "handleData" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "handleData" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
@Jacques & @pesho hristov You missed this point. Submit handler is not thesuccess
method, it's the surrounding scope of$.ajax
.
– travnik
May 28 '18 at 12:37
@travnik I didn't miss that. If you took the contents of handleData and put it in the success method it would act exactly the same...
– Jacques
Jun 13 '18 at 1:21
add a comment |
The simplest solution is create a JavaScript function and call it for the Ajax success
callback.
function callServerAsync(){
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
successCallback(response);
}
});
}
function successCallback(responseObj){
// Do something like read the response and show data
alert(JSON.stringify(responseObj)); // Only applicable to JSON response
}
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
return callback(null, response);
}
});
}
var result = foo(function(err, result){
if (!err)
console.log(result);
});
2
I don't know who voted it negative. But this is a work around which has worked in fact i used this approach to create a whole application. The jquery.ajax don't return data so its better to use the above approach. If it's wrong then please explain and suggest better way to do it.
– Hemant Bavle
Mar 28 '14 at 18:12
11
Sorry, I forgot to leave a comment (I usually do!). I downvoted it. Downvotes don't indicate factual correctness or lack of, they indicate usefulness in the context or lack of. I don't find your answer useful given Felix's which already explains this only in much more detail. On a side note, why would you stringify the response if it's JSON?
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Apr 10 '14 at 9:18
5
ok.. @Benjamin i used stringify, to convert a JSON Object to string. And thanks for clarifying your point. Will keep in mind to post more elaborate answers.
– Hemant Bavle
Apr 10 '14 at 10:27
And what if you want to return the "responseObj" outside of "successCallback" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "successCallback" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
add a comment |
I will answer with a horrible-looking, hand-drawn comic. The second image is the reason why result
is undefined
in your code example.
24
A picture is worth a thousand words, Person A - Ask's person B details to fix his car, in turn Person B - Makes Ajax Call and waits for response from server for car fixing details, when response is received, Ajax Success function calls the Person B function and passes the response as argument to it, Person A receives the answer.
– stom
Oct 31 '16 at 17:48
5
Would be great if you added lines of code with each image to illustrate the concepts.
– Hassan Baig
Feb 5 '18 at 0:32
6
The best explanation I've ever come across
– anonymous
Mar 31 '18 at 15:52
1
Best Explanation
– Vijay S
Aug 23 '18 at 9:42
add a comment |
Angular1
For people who are using AngularJS, can handle this situation using Promises
.
Here it says,
Promises can be used to unnest asynchronous functions and allows one to chain multiple functions together.
You can find a nice explanation here also.
Example found in docs mentioned below.
promiseB = promiseA.then(
function onSuccess(result) {
return result + 1;
}
,function onError(err) {
//Handle error
}
);
// promiseB will be resolved immediately after promiseA is resolved
// and its value will be the result of promiseA incremented by 1.
Angular2 and Later
In Angular2
with look at the following example, but its recommended to use Observables
with Angular2
.
search(term: string) {
return this.http
.get(`https://api.spotify.com/v1/search?q=${term}&type=artist`)
.map((response) => response.json())
.toPromise();
}
You can consume that in this way,
search() {
this.searchService.search(this.searchField.value)
.then((result) => {
this.result = result.artists.items;
})
.catch((error) => console.error(error));
}
See the original post here. But Typescript does not support native es6 Promises, if you want to use it, you might need plugin for that.
Additionally here is the promises spec define here.
13
This does not explain how promises would solve this issue at all though.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Nov 4 '14 at 2:29
4
It doesn't work. promiseB will get 'undefined'
– An Overflowed Stack
Nov 21 '14 at 15:35
3
jQuery and fetch methods both return promises as well. I would suggest revising your answer. Though jQuery's isn't quite the same (then is there, but catch isn't).
– Tracker1
Feb 19 '15 at 19:24
add a comment |
Most of the answers here give useful suggestions for when you have a single async operation, but sometimes, this comes up when you need to do an asynchronous operation for each entry in an array or other list-like structure. The temptation is to do this:
// WRONG
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log(results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
Example:
// WRONG
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
The reason that doesn't work is that the callbacks from doSomethingAsync
haven't run yet by the time you're trying to use the results.
So, if you have an array (or list of some kind) and want to do async operations for each entry, you have two options: Do the operations in parallel (overlapping), or in series (one after another in sequence).
Parallel
You can start all of them and keep track of how many callbacks you're expecting, and then use the results when you've gotten that many callbacks:
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
Example:
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(We could do away with expecting
and just use results.length === theArray.length
, but that leaves us open to the possibility that theArray
is changed while the calls are outstanding...)
Notice how we use the index
from forEach
to save the result in results
in the same position as the entry it relates to, even if the results arrive out of order (since async calls don't necessarily complete in the order in which they were started).
But what if you need to return those results from a function? As the other answers have pointed out, you can't; you have to have your function accept and call a callback (or return a Promise). Here's a callback version:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Or here's a version returning a Promise
instead:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Of course, if doSomethingAsync
passed us errors, we'd use reject
to reject the promise when we got an error.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or alternately, you could make a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that returns a promise, and then do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, you can use Promise.all
:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Note that Promise.all
resolves its promise with an array of the results of all of the promises you give it when they are all resolved, or rejects its promise when the first of the promises you give it rejects.
Series
Suppose you don't want the operations to be in parallel? If you want to run them one after another, you need to wait for each operation to complete before you start the next. Here's an example of a function that does that and calls a callback with the result:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
(Since we're doing the work in series, we can just use results.push(result)
since we know we won't get results out of order. In the above we could have used results[index] = result;
, but in some of the following examples we don't have an index to use.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or, again, build a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that gives you a promise and do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, if you can use ES2017+ syntax (perhaps with a transpiler like Babel), you can use an async
function with for-of
and await
:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
If you can't use ES2017+ syntax (yet), you can use a variation on the "Promise reduce" pattern (this is more complex than the usual Promise reduce because we're not passing the result from one into the next, but instead gathering up their results in an array):
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
...which is less cumbersome with ES2015+ arrow functions:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
1
Could you explain how theif (--expecting === 0)
part of the code works please? The callback version of your solution is working great for me, I just don't understand how, with that statement, you are checking the number of responses completed. Appreciate it's just lack of knowledge on my part. Is there an alternative way that check could be written?
– Sarah
May 28 '17 at 10:21
@Sarah:expecting
starts out with the value ofarray.length
, which is how many requests we're going to make. We know the callback won't be called until all of those requests are started. In the callback,if (--expecting === 0)
does this: 1. Decrementsexpecting
(we've received a response, so we're expecting one fewer response) and if the value after the decrement is 0 (we're not expecting any more responses), we're done!
– T.J. Crowder
May 28 '17 at 18:31
add a comment |
Have a look at this example:
var app = angular.module('plunker', );
app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope,$http) {
var getJoke = function(){
return $http.get('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random').then(function(res){
return res.data.value;
});
}
getJoke().then(function(res) {
console.log(res.joke);
});
});
As you can see getJoke
is returning a resolved promise (it is resolved when returning res.data.value
). So you wait until the $http.get request is completed and then console.log(res.joke) is executed (as a normal asynchronous flow).
This is the plnkr:
http://embed.plnkr.co/XlNR7HpCaIhJxskMJfSg/
ES6 way (async - await)
(function(){
async function getJoke(){
let response = await fetch('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random');
let data = await response.json();
return data.value;
}
getJoke().then((joke) => {
console.log(joke);
});
})();
add a comment |
Another approach to return a value from an asynchronous function, is to pass in an object that will store the result from the asynchronous function.
Here is an example of the same:
var async = require("async");
// This wires up result back to the caller
var result = {};
var asyncTasks = ;
asyncTasks.push(function(_callback){
// some asynchronous operation
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response;
_callback();
}
});
});
async.parallel(asyncTasks, function(){
// result is available after performing asynchronous operation
console.log(result)
console.log('Done');
});
I am using the result
object to store the value during the asynchronous operation. This allows the result be available even after the asynchronous job.
I use this approach a lot. I would be interested to know how well this approach works where wiring the result back through consecutive modules is involved.
9
There is nothing special about using an object here. It would work as well if you assigned he response directly toresult
. It works because you are reading the variable after the async function is complete.
– Felix Kling
Sep 2 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
This is one of the places which two ways data binding that's used in many new JavaScript frameworks will work greatly for you...
So if you are using Angular, React or any other frameworks which do two ways data binding, this issue is simply fixed for you, so in easy word, your result is undefined
at the first stage, so you have got result = undefined
before you receive the data, then as soon as you get the result, it will updated and get assigned to the new value which is respond of your Ajax call...
But how you can do it in pure javascript or jQuery for example as you asked in this question?
You can use a callback, promise and recently observable to handle it for you, for example in promises we have some function like success() or then() which will be executed when your data is ready for you, same with callback or subscribe function on observable.
For example in your case which you are using jQuery, you can do something like this:
$(document).ready(function(){
function foo() {
$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: function(data){
fooDone(data); //after we have data, we pass it to fooDone
}});
};
function fooDone(data) {
console.log(data); //fooDone has the data and console.log it
};
foo(); //call happens here
});
For more information study about promises and observables which are newer ways to do this async stuffs.
This is fine at global scope, but in some module context you probably want to ensure right context for the callback e.g.$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: fooDone.bind(this)});
– steve.sims
Jul 24 '17 at 6:14
5
This is actually incorrect as React is one-way data binding
– Matthew Brent
May 4 '18 at 15:57
@MatthewBrent you are not wrong, but not right also, React props are object and if changed, they change throughout the application, but its not a way that React developer recommend to use it...
– Alireza
May 14 '18 at 7:34
add a comment |
While promises and callbacks work fine in many situations, it is a pain in the rear to express something like:
if (!name) {
name = async1();
}
async2(name);
You'd end up going through async1
; check if name
is undefined or not and call the callback accordingly.
async1(name, callback) {
if (name)
callback(name)
else {
doSomething(callback)
}
}
async1(name, async2)
While it is okay in small examples it gets annoying when you have a lot of similar cases and error handling involved.
Fibers
helps in solving the issue.
var Fiber = require('fibers')
function async1(container) {
var current = Fiber.current
var result
doSomething(function(name) {
result = name
fiber.run()
})
Fiber.yield()
return result
}
Fiber(function() {
var name
if (!name) {
name = async1()
}
async2(name)
// Make any number of async calls from here
}
You can checkout the project here.
@recurf - It's not my project. You could try using their issue tracker.
– rohithpr
Jan 20 '17 at 15:22
is this similar to generator functions? developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/…*
– Emanegux
Jun 7 '17 at 3:19
Is this still relevant?
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:43
You can make use ofasync-await
if you're using some of the newest versions of node. If someone is stuck with older versions they can use this method.
– rohithpr
Mar 20 '18 at 8:18
add a comment |
Short answer is, you have to implement a callback like this:
function callback(response) {
// Here you can do what ever you want with the response object.
console.log(response);
}
$.ajax({
url: "...",
success: callback
});
add a comment |
The following example I have written shows how to
- Handle asynchronous HTTP calls;
- Wait for response from each API call;
- Use Promise pattern;
- Use Promise.all pattern to join multiple HTTP calls;
This working example is self-contained. It will define a simple request object that uses the window XMLHttpRequest
object to make calls. It will define a simple function to wait for a bunch of promises to be completed.
Context. The example is querying the Spotify Web API endpoint in order to search for playlist
objects for a given set of query strings:
[
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
For each item, a new Promise will fire a block - ExecutionBlock
, parse the result, schedule a new set of promises based on the result array, that is a list of Spotify user
objects and execute the new HTTP call within the ExecutionProfileBlock
asynchronously.
You can then see a nested Promise structure, that lets you spawn multiple and completely asynchronous nested HTTP calls, and join the results from each subset of calls through Promise.all
.
NOTE
Recent Spotify search
APIs will require an access token to be specified in the request headers:
-H "Authorization: Bearer {your access token}"
So, you to run the following example you need to put your access token in the request headers:
var spotifyAccessToken = "YourSpotifyAccessToken";
var console = {
log: function(s) {
document.getElementById("console").innerHTML += s + "<br/>"
}
}
// Simple XMLHttpRequest
// based on https://davidwalsh.name/xmlhttprequest
SimpleRequest = {
call: function(what, response) {
var request;
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // Mozilla, Safari, ...
request = new XMLHttpRequest();
} else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // Internet Explorer
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.XMLHTTP');
}
catch (e) {
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
} catch (e) {}
}
}
// State changes
request.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (request.readyState === 4) { // Done
if (request.status === 200) { // Complete
response(request.responseText)
}
else
response();
}
}
request.open('GET', what, true);
request.setRequestHeader("Authorization", "Bearer " + spotifyAccessToken);
request.send(null);
}
}
//PromiseAll
var promiseAll = function(items, block, done, fail) {
var self = this;
var promises = ,
index = 0;
items.forEach(function(item) {
promises.push(function(item, i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
if (block) {
block.apply(this, [item, index, resolve, reject]);
}
});
}(item, ++index))
});
Promise.all(promises).then(function AcceptHandler(results) {
if (done) done(results);
}, function ErrorHandler(error) {
if (fail) fail(error);
});
}; //promiseAll
// LP: deferred execution block
var ExecutionBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
var url = "https://api.spotify.com/v1/"
url += item;
console.log( url )
SimpleRequest.call(url, function(result) {
if (result) {
var profileUrls = JSON.parse(result).playlists.items.map(function(item, index) {
return item.owner.href;
})
resolve(profileUrls);
}
else {
reject(new Error("call error"));
}
})
}
arr = [
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
promiseAll(arr, function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
console.log("Making request [" + index + "]")
ExecutionBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // Aggregated results
console.log("All profiles received " + results.length);
//console.log(JSON.stringify(results[0], null, 2));
///// promiseall again
var ExecutionProfileBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
SimpleRequest.call(item, function(result) {
if (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
resolve({
name: obj.display_name,
followers: obj.followers.total,
url: obj.href
});
} //result
})
} //ExecutionProfileBlock
promiseAll(results[0], function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
//console.log("Making request [" + index + "] " + item)
ExecutionProfileBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // aggregated results
console.log("All response received " + results.length);
console.log(JSON.stringify(results, null, 2));
}
, function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
})
/////
},
function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
});
<div id="console" />
I have extensively discussed this solution here.
add a comment |
2017 answer: you can now do exactly what you want in every current browser and node
This is quite simple:
- Return a Promise
- Use the 'await', which will tell JavaScript to await the promise to be resolved into a value (like the HTTP response)
- Add the 'async' keyword to the parent function
Here's a working version of your code:
(async function(){
var response = await superagent.get('...')
console.log(response)
})()
await is supported in all current browsers and node 8
6
Unfortunately, this works only with functions that return promises – for example it doesn't work with Node.js API, which uses callbacks. And I wouldn't recommend using it without Babel, because not everyone uses "current browsers".
– Michał Perłakowski
Jun 8 '17 at 6:47
1
@MichałPerłakowski node 8 includes nodejs.org/api/util.html#util_util_promisify_original which can be used to make the node.js API return promises. Whether you have the time and money to support non-current browsers obviously depends on your situation.
– mikemaccana
Jun 9 '17 at 18:28
IE 11 is still a current browser in 2018, sadly and it doesn't supportawait/async
– Juan Mendes
Oct 4 '18 at 14:51
IE11 is not a current browser. It was released 5 years ago, has a worldwide market share of 2.5% according to caniuse, and unless someone is doubling your budget to ignore all current tech then it's not worth most people's time.
– mikemaccana
Oct 4 '18 at 14:57
add a comment |
You can use this custom library (written using Promise) to make a remote call.
function $http(apiConfig) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
var client = new XMLHttpRequest();
client.open(apiConfig.method, apiConfig.url);
client.send();
client.onload = function () {
if (this.status >= 200 && this.status < 300) {
// Performs the function "resolve" when this.status is equal to 2xx.
// Your logic here.
resolve(this.response);
}
else {
// Performs the function "reject" when this.status is different than 2xx.
reject(this.statusText);
}
};
client.onerror = function () {
reject(this.statusText);
};
});
}
Simple usage example:
$http({
method: 'get',
url: 'google.com'
}).then(function(response) {
console.log(response);
}, function(error) {
console.log(error)
});
add a comment |
Js is a single threaded.
Browser can be divided into three parts:
1)Event Loop
2)Web API
3)Event Queue
Event Loop runs for forever i.e kind of infinite loop.Event Queue is where all your function are pushed on some event(example:click) this is one by one carried out of queue and put into Event loop which execute this function and prepares it self for next one after first one is executed.This means Execution of one function doesn't starts till the function before it in queue is executed in event loop.
Now let us think we pushed two functions in a queue one is for getting a data from server and another utilises that data.We pushed the serverRequest() function in queue first then utiliseData() function. serverRequest function goes in event loop and makes a call to server as we never know how much time it will take to get data from server
so this process is expected to take time and so we busy our event loop thus hanging our page, that's where Web API come into role it take this function from event loop and deals with server making event loop free so that we can execute next function from queue.The next function in queue is utiliseData() which goes in loop but because of no data available it goes waste and execution of next function continues till end of the queue.(This is called Async calling i.e we can do something else till we get data)
Let suppose our serverRequest() function had a return statement in a code, when we get back data from server Web API will push it in queue at the end of queue.
As it get pushed at end in queue we cannot utilise its data as there is no function left in our queue to utilise this data.Thus it is not possible to return something from Async Call.
Thus Solution to this is callback or promise.
A Image from one of the answers here, Correctly explains callback use...
We give our function(function utilising data returned from server) to function calling server.
function doAjax(callbackFunc, method, url) {
var xmlHttpReq = new XMLHttpRequest();
xmlHttpReq.open(method, url);
xmlHttpReq.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (xmlHttpReq.readyState == 4 && xmlHttpReq.status == 200) {
callbackFunc(xmlHttpReq.responseText);
}
}
xmlHttpReq.send(null);
}
In my Code it is called as
function loadMyJson(categoryValue){
if(categoryValue==="veg")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/vegetables");
else if(categoryValue==="fruits")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/fruits");
else
console.log("Data not found");
}
Read here for new methods in ECMA(2016/17) for making async call(@Felix Kling Answer on Top)
https://stackoverflow.com/a/14220323/7579856
for nice picture +1
– Kamil Kiełczewski
Dec 3 '18 at 18:12
add a comment |
Another solution is to execute code via sequential executor nsynjs.
If underlying function is promisified
nsynjs will evaluate all promises sequentially, and put promise result into data
property:
function synchronousCode() {
var getURL = function(url) {
return window.fetch(url).data.text().data;
};
var url = 'https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/jquery.min.js';
console.log('received bytes:',getURL(url).length);
};
nsynjs.run(synchronousCode,{},function(){
console.log('synchronousCode done');
});
<script src="https://rawgit.com/amaksr/nsynjs/master/nsynjs.js"></script>
If underlying function is not promisified
Step 1. Wrap function with callback into nsynjs-aware wrapper (if it has promisified version, you can skip this test):
var ajaxGet = function (ctx,url) {
var res = {};
var ex;
$.ajax(url)
.done(function (data) {
res.data = data;
})
.fail(function(e) {
ex = e;
})
.always(function() {
ctx.resume(ex);
});
return res;
};
ajaxGet.nsynjsHasCallback = true;
Step 2. Put synchronous logic into function:
function process() {
console.log('got data:', ajaxGet(nsynjsCtx, "data/file1.json").data);
}
Step 3. Run function in synchronous manner via nnsynjs:
nsynjs.run(process,this,function () {
console.log("synchronous function finished");
});
Nsynjs will evaluate all operators and expressions step-by-step, pausing execution in case if result of some slow function is not ready.
More examples here: https://github.com/amaksr/nsynjs/tree/master/examples
1
This is interesting. I like how it allows to code async calls the way you'd do it in other languages. But technically it's not real JavaScript?
– J Morris
Jun 16 '17 at 23:55
add a comment |
It's a very common issue we face while struggling with the 'mysteries' of JavaScript. Let me try demystifying this mystery today.
Let's start with a simple JavaScript function:
function foo(){
// do something
return 'wohoo';
}
let bar = foo(); // bar is 'wohoo' here
That's a simple synchronous function call (where each line of code is 'finished with its job' before the next one in sequence), and the result is same as expected.
Now let's add a bit of twist, by introducing little delay in our function, so that all lines of code are not 'finished' in sequence. Thus, it will emulate the asynchronous behavior of function :
function foo(){
setTimeout( ()=>{
return 'wohoo';
}, 1000 )
}
let bar = foo() // bar is undefined here
So there you go, that delay just broke the functionality we expected! But what exactly happened ? Well, it's actually pretty logical if you look at the code. the function foo()
, upon execution, returns nothing (thus returned value is undefined
), but it does start a timer, which executes a function after 1s to return 'wohoo'. But as you can see, the value that's assigned to bar is the immediately returned stuff from foo(), not anything else that comes later.
So, how do we tackle this issue?
Let's ask our function for a PROMISE.
Promise is really about what it means : it means that the function guarantees you to provide with any output it gets in future. so let's see it in action for our little problem above :
function foo(){
return new Promise( (resolve, reject) => { // I want foo() to PROMISE me something
setTimeout ( function(){
// promise is RESOLVED , when execution reaches this line of code
resolve('wohoo')// After 1 second, RESOLVE the promise with value 'wohoo'
}, 1000 )
})
}
let bar ;
foo().then( res => {
bar = res;
console.log(bar) // will print 'wohoo'
});
Thus, the summary is - to tackle the asynchronous functions like ajax based calls etc., you can use a promise to resolve
the value (which you intend to return). Thus, in short you resolve value instead of returning, in asynchronous functions.
UPDATE (Promises with async/await)
Apart from using then/catch
to work with promises, there exists one more approach. The idea is to recognize an asynchronous function and then wait for the promises to resolve, before moving to the next line of code. It's still just the promises
under the hood, but with a different syntactical approach. To make things clearer, you can find a comparison below:
then/catch version:
function fetchUsers(){
let users = ;
getUsers()
.then(_users => users = _users)
.catch(err =>{
throw err
})
return users;
}
async/await version:
async function fetchUsers(){
try{
let users = await getUsers()
return users;
}
catch(err){
throw err;
}
}
is this still considered the best way to return a value from a promise or async/await?
– edwardsmarkf
Sep 26 '18 at 20:58
@edwardsmarkf Personally I don't think there's a best way as such. I use promises with then/catch , async/await as well as generators for async portions of my code. It largely depends on the context of usage.
– Anish K.
Oct 3 '18 at 16:12
add a comment |
Here are some approaches to work with asynchronous requests:
- Browser Promise object
Q - A promise library for JavaScript- A+ Promises.js
- jQuery deferred
- XMLHttpRequest API
- Using callback concept - As implementation in first answer
Example: jQuery deferred implementation to work with multiple requests
var App = App || {};
App = {
getDataFromServer: function(){
var self = this,
deferred = $.Deferred(),
requests = ;
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/1'));
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/2'));
$.when.apply(jQuery, requests).done(function(xhrResponse) {
return deferred.resolve(xhrResponse.result);
});
return deferred;
},
init: function(){
this.getDataFromServer().done(_.bind(function(resp1, resp2) {
// Do the operations which you wanted to do when you
// get a response from Ajax, for example, log response.
}, this));
}
};
App.init();
add a comment |
ECMAScript 6 has 'generators' which allow you to easily program in an asynchronous style.
function* myGenerator() {
const callback = yield;
let [response] = yield $.ajax("https://stackoverflow.com", {complete: callback});
console.log("response is:", response);
// examples of other things you can do
yield setTimeout(callback, 1000);
console.log("it delayed for 1000ms");
while (response.statusText === "error") {
[response] = yield* anotherGenerator();
}
}
To run the above code you do this:
const gen = myGenerator(); // Create generator
gen.next(); // Start it
gen.next((...args) => gen.next([...args])); // Set its callback function
If you need to target browsers that don't support ES6 you can run the code through Babel or closure-compiler to generate ECMAScript 5.
The callback ...args
are wrapped in an array and destructured when you read them so that the pattern can cope with callbacks that have multiple arguments. For example with node fs:
const [err, data] = yield fs.readFile(filePath, "utf-8", callback);
4
I would be interested to know why this is down-voted. It seems a good simple answer that has not been previously given.
– James
Feb 17 '18 at 17:49
People probably just assume answers at the end are repeats or spam.
– whackamadoodle3000
Mar 1 '18 at 1:08
add a comment |
Use a callback()
function inside the foo()
success.
Try in this way. It is simple and easy to understand.
var lat = "";
var lon = "";
function callback(data) {
lat = data.lat;
lon = data.lon;
}
function getLoc() {
var url = "http://ip-api.com/json"
$.getJSON(url, function(data) {
callback(data);
});
}
getLoc();
add a comment |
Short answer: Your foo()
method returns immediately, while the $ajax()
call executes asynchronously after the function returns. The problem is then how or where to store the results retrieved by the async call once it returns.
Several solutions have been given in this thread. Perhaps the easiest way is to pass an object to the foo()
method, and to store the results in a member of that object after the async call completes.
function foo(result) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response; // Store the async result
}
});
}
var result = { response: null }; // Object to hold the async result
foo(result); // Returns before the async completes
Note that the call to foo()
will still return nothing useful. However, the result of the async call will now be stored in result.response
.
12
While this works, it's not really better than assigning to a global variable.
– Felix Kling
Sep 23 '15 at 22:53
add a comment |
Of course there are many approaches like synchronous request, promise, but from my experience I think you should use the callback approach. It's natural to asynchronous behavior of Javascript.
So, your code snippet can be rewrite a little different:
function foo() {
var result;
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
myCallback(response);
}
});
return result;
}
function myCallback(response) {
// Does something.
}
4
There's nothing inherently asynchronous about callbacks or JavaScript.
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:48
add a comment |
The question was:
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
which CAN be interpreted as:
How to make asynchronous code look synchronous?
The solution will be to avoid callbacks, and use a combination of Promises and async/await.
I would like to give an example for a Ajax request.
(Although it can be written in Javascript, I prefer to write it in Python, and compile it to Javascript using Transcrypt. It will be clear enough.)
Lets first enable JQuery usage, to have $
available as S
:
__pragma__ ('alias', 'S', '$')
Define a function which returns a Promise, in this case an Ajax call:
def read(url: str):
deferred = S.Deferred()
S.ajax({'type': "POST", 'url': url, 'data': { },
'success': lambda d: deferred.resolve(d),
'error': lambda e: deferred.reject(e)
})
return deferred.promise()
Use the asynchronous code as if it were synchronous:
async def readALot():
try:
result1 = await read("url_1")
result2 = await read("url_2")
except Exception:
console.warn("Reading a lot failed")
add a comment |
We find ourselves in a universe which appears to progress along a dimension we call "time". We don't really understand what time is, but we have developed abstractions and vocabulary that let us reason and talk about it: "past", "present", "future", "before", "after".
The computer systems we build--more and more--have time as an important dimension. Certain things are set up to happen in the future. Then other things need to happen after those first things eventually occur. This is the basic notion called "asynchronicity". In our increasingly networked world, the most common case of asynchronicity is waiting for some remote system to respond to some request.
Consider an example. You call the milkman and order some milk. When it comes, you want to put it in your coffee. You can't put the milk in your coffee right now, because it is not here yet. You have to wait for it to come before putting it in your coffee. In other words, the following won't work:
var milk = order_milk();
put_in_coffee(milk);
Because JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for order_milk
to finish before it executes put_in_coffee
. In other words, it does not know that order_milk
is asynchronous--is something that is not going to result in milk until some future time. JS, and other declarative languages execute one statement after another without waiting.
The classic JS approach to this problem, taking advantage of the fact that JS supports functions as first-class objects which can be passed around, is to pass a function as a parameter to the asynchronous request, which it will then invoke when it has completed its task sometime in the future. That is the "callback" approach. It looks like this:
order_milk(put_in_coffee);
order_milk
kicks off, orders the milk, then, when and only when it arrives, it invokes put_in_coffee
.
The problem with this callback approach is that it pollutes the normal semantics of a function reporting its result with return
; instead, functions must not reports their results by calling a callback given as a parameter. Also, this approach can rapidly become unwieldy when dealing with longer sequences of events. For example, let's say that I want to wait for the milk to be put in the coffee, and then and only then perform a third step, namely drinking the coffee. I end up needing to write something like this:
order_milk(function(milk) { put_in_coffee(milk, drink_coffee); }
where I am passing to put_in_coffee
both the milk to put in it, and also the action (drink_coffee
) to execute once the milk has been put in. Such code becomes hard to write, and read, and debug.
In this case, we could rewrite the code in the question as:
var answer;
$.ajax('/foo.json') . done(function(response) {
callback(response.data);
});
function callback(data) {
console.log(data);
}
Enter promises
This was the motivation for the notion of a "promise", which is a particular type of value which represents a future or asynchronous outcome of some sort. It can represent something that already happened, or that is going to happen in the future, or might never happen at all. Promises have a single method, named then
, to which you pass an action to be executed when the outcome the promise represents has been realized.
In the case of our milk and coffee, we design order_milk
to return a promise for the milk arriving, then specify put_in_coffee
as a then
action, as follows:
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee)
One advantage of this is that we can string these together to create sequences of future occurrences ("chaining"):
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee) . then(drink_coffee)
Let's apply promises to your particular problem. We will wrap our request logic inside a function, which returns a promise:
function get_data() {
return $.ajax('/foo.json');
}
Actually, all we've done is added a return
to the call to $.ajax
. This works because jQuery's $.ajax
already returns a kind of promise-like thing. (In practice, without getting into details, we would prefer to wrap this call so as for return a real promise, or use some alternative to $.ajax
that does so.) Now, if we want to load the file and wait for it to finish and then do something, we can simply say
get_data() . then(do_something)
for instance,
get_data() .
then(function(data) { console.log(data); });
When using promises, we end up passing lots of functions into then
, so it's often helpful to use the more compact ES6-style arrow functions:
get_data() .
then(data => console.log(data));
The async
keyword
But there's still something vaguely dissatisfying about having to write code one way if synchronous and a quite different way if asynchronous. For synchronous, we write
a();
b();
but if a
is asynchronous, with promises we have to write
a() . then(b);
Above, we said, "JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for the first call to finish before it executes the second". Wouldn't it be nice if there was some way to tell JS that? It turns out that there is--the await
keyword, used inside a special type of function called an "async" function. This feature is part of the upcoming version of ES but is already available in transpilers such as Babel given the right presets. This allows us to simply write
async function morning_routine() {
var milk = await order_milk();
var coffee = await put_in_coffee(milk);
await drink(coffee);
}
In your case, you would be able to write something like
async function foo() {
data = await get_data();
console.log(data);
}
add a comment |
Using ES2017 you should have this as the function declaration
async function foo() {
var response = await $.ajax({url: '...'})
return response;
}
And executing it like this.
(async function() {
try {
var result = await foo()
console.log(result)
} catch (e) {}
})()
Or the Promise syntax
foo().then(response => {
console.log(response)
}).catch(error => {
console.log(error)
})
add a comment |
Let's see the forest first before looking at the trees.
There are many informative answers with great details here, I won't repeat any of them. The key to programming in JavaScript is having first the correct mental model of overall execution.
- Your entry point(s) is executed as the result of an event. For
example, a script tag with code is loaded into the browser.
(Accordingly, this is why you may need to be concerned with the
readiness of the page to run your code if it requires dom elements
to be constructed first, etc.) - Your code executes to completion--however many asynchronous calls it
makes--without executing any of your callbacks, including XHR
requests, set timeouts, dom event handlers, etc. Each of those callbacks waiting to be executed will sit in a queue, waiting their turn to be run after other events that fired have all finished execution. - Each individual callback to an XHR request, set timeout or dom
the event once invoked will then run to completion.
The good news is that if you understand this point well, you will never have to worry about race conditions. You should first and foremost thing of how you want to organize your code as essentially the response to different discrete events, and how you want to thread them together into a logical sequence. You can use promises or higher level new async/await as tools to that end, or you can roll your own.
But you shouldn't use any tactical tools to solve a problem until you are comfortable with the actual problem domain. Draw a map of these dependencies to know what needs to run when. Attempting an ad-hoc approach to all these callbacks is just not going to serve you well.
add a comment |
Rather than throwing code at you, there are 2 concepts that are key to understanding how JS handles callbacks and asynchronicity. (is that even a word?)
The Event Loop and Concurrency Model
There are three things you need to be aware of; The queue; the event loop and the stack
In broad, simplistic terms, the event loop is like the project manager, it is constantly listening for any functions that want to run and communicates between the queue and the stack.
while (queue.waitForMessage()) {
queue.processNextMessage();
}
Once it receives a message to run something it adds it to the queue. The queue is the list of things that are waiting to execute (like your AJAX request). imagine it like this:
1. call foo.com/api/bar using foobarFunc
2. Go perform an infinite loop
... and so on
When one of these messages is going to execute it pops the message from the queue and creates a stack, the stack is everything JS needs to execute to perform the instruction in the message. So in our example it's being told to call foobarFunc
function foobarFunc (var) {
console.log(anotherFunction(var));
}
So anything that foobarFunc needs to execute (in our case anotherFunction
) will get pushed onto the stack. executed, and then forgotten about - the event loop will then move onto the next thing in the queue (or listen for messages)
The key thing here is the order of execution. That is
WHEN is something going to run
When you make a call using AJAX to an external party or run any asynchronous code (a setTimeout for example), Javascript is dependant upon a response before it can proceed.
The big question is when will it get the response? The answer is we don't know - so the event loop is waiting for that message to say "hey run me". If JS just waited around for that message synchronously your app would freeze and it will suck. So JS carries on executing the next item in the queue whilst waiting for the message to get added back to the queue.
That's why with asynchronous functionality we use things called callbacks. It's kinda like a promise quite literally. As in I promise to return something at some point jQuery uses specific callbacks called deffered.done
deffered.fail
and deffered.always
(amongst others). You can see them all here
So what you need to do is pass a function that is promised to execute at some point with data that is passed to it.
Because a callback is not executed immediately but at a later time it's important to pass the reference to the function not it executed. so
function foo(bla) {
console.log(bla)
}
so most of the time (but not always) you'll pass foo
not foo()
Hopefully that will make some sense. When you encounter things like this that seem confusing - i highly recommend reading the documentation fully to at least get an understanding of it. It will make you a much better developer.
add a comment |
1 2
next
protected by Travis J May 30 '13 at 20:57
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
33 Answers
33
active
oldest
votes
33 Answers
33
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
1 2
next
→ For a more general explanation of async behaviour with different examples, please see Why is my variable unaltered after I modify it inside of a function? - Asynchronous code reference
→ If you already understand the problem, skip to the possible solutions below.
The problem
The A in Ajax stands for asynchronous . That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, $.ajax
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
Here is an analogy which hopefully makes the difference between synchronous and asynchronous flow clearer:
Synchronous
Imagine you make a phone call to a friend and ask him to look something up for you. Although it might take a while, you wait on the phone and stare into space, until your friend gives you the answer that you needed.
The same is happening when you make a function call containing "normal" code:
function findItem() {
var item;
while(item_not_found) {
// search
}
return item;
}
var item = findItem();
// Do something with item
doSomethingElse();
Even though findItem
might take a long time to execute, any code coming after var item = findItem();
has to wait until the function returns the result.
Asynchronous
You call your friend again for the same reason. But this time you tell him that you are in a hurry and he should call you back on your mobile phone. You hang up, leave the house and do whatever you planned to do. Once your friend calls you back, you are dealing with the information he gave to you.
That's exactly what's happening when you do an Ajax request.
findItem(function(item) {
// Do something with item
});
doSomethingElse();
Instead of waiting for the response, the execution continues immediately and the statement after the Ajax call is executed. To get the response eventually, you provide a function to be called once the response was received, a callback (notice something? call back ?). Any statement coming after that call is executed before the callback is called.
Solution(s)
Embrace the asynchronous nature of JavaScript! While certain asynchronous operations provide synchronous counterparts (so does "Ajax"), it's generally discouraged to use them, especially in a browser context.
Why is it bad do you ask?
JavaScript runs in the UI thread of the browser and any long running process will lock the UI, making it unresponsive. Additionally, there is an upper limit on the execution time for JavaScript and the browser will ask the user whether to continue the execution or not.
All of this is really bad user experience. The user won't be able to tell whether everything is working fine or not. Furthermore, the effect will be worse for users with a slow connection.
In the following we will look at three different solutions that are all building on top of each other:
Promises withasync/await
(ES2017+, available in older browsers if you use a transpiler or regenerator)
Callbacks (popular in node)
Promises withthen()
(ES2015+, available in older browsers if you use one of the many promise libraries)
All three are available in current browsers, and node 7+.
ES2017+: Promises with async/await
The ECMAScript version released in 2017 introduced syntax-level support for asynchronous functions. With the help of async
and await
, you can write asynchronous in a "synchronous style". The code is still asynchronous, but it's easier to read/understand.
async/await
builds on top of promises: an async
function always returns a promise. await
"unwraps" a promise and either result in the value the promise was resolved with or throws an error if the promise was rejected.
Important: You can only use await
inside an async
function. Right now, top-level await
isn't yet supported, so you might have to make an async IIFE to start an async
context.
You can read more about async
and await
on MDN.
Here is an example that builds on top of delay above:
// Using 'superagent' which will return a promise.
var superagent = require('superagent')
// This is isn't declared as `async` because it already returns a promise
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
async function getAllBooks() {
try {
// GET a list of book IDs of the current user
var bookIDs = await superagent.get('/user/books');
// wait for 3 seconds (just for the sake of this example)
await delay();
// GET information about each book
return await superagent.get('/books/ids='+JSON.stringify(bookIDs));
} catch(error) {
// If any of the awaited promises was rejected, this catch block
// would catch the rejection reason
return null;
}
}
// Start an IIFE to use `await` at the top level
(async function(){
let books = await getAllBooks();
console.log(books);
})();
Current browser and node versions support async/await
. You can also support older environments by transforming your code to ES5 with the help of regenerator (or tools that use regenerator, such as Babel).
Let functions accept callbacks
A callback is simply a function passed to another function. That other function can call the function passed whenever it is ready. In the context of an asynchronous process, the callback will be called whenever the asynchronous process is done. Usually, the result is passed to the callback.
In the example of the question, you can make foo
accept a callback and use it as success
callback. So this
var result = foo();
// Code that depends on 'result'
becomes
foo(function(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
});
Here we defined the function "inline" but you can pass any function reference:
function myCallback(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
}
foo(myCallback);
foo
itself is defined as follows:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: callback
});
}
callback
will refer to the function we pass to foo
when we call it and we simply pass it on to success
. I.e. once the Ajax request is successful, $.ajax
will call callback
and pass the response to the callback (which can be referred to with result
, since this is how we defined the callback).
You can also process the response before passing it to the callback:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: function(response) {
// For example, filter the response
callback(filtered_response);
}
});
}
It's easier to write code using callbacks than it may seem. After all, JavaScript in the browser is heavily event-driven (DOM events). Receiving the Ajax response is nothing else but an event.
Difficulties could arise when you have to work with third-party code, but most problems can be solved by just thinking through the application flow.
ES2015+: Promises with then()
The Promise API is a new feature of ECMAScript 6 (ES2015), but it has good browser support already. There are also many libraries which implement the standard Promises API and provide additional methods to ease the use and composition of asynchronous functions (e.g. bluebird).
Promises are containers for future values. When the promise receives the value (it is resolved) or when it is cancelled (rejected), it notifies all of its "listeners" who want to access this value.
The advantage over plain callbacks is that they allow you to decouple your code and they are easier to compose.
Here is a simple example of using a promise:
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
delay()
.then(function(v) { // `delay` returns a promise
console.log(v); // Log the value once it is resolved
})
.catch(function(v) {
// Or do something else if it is rejected
// (it would not happen in this example, since `reject` is not called).
});
Applied to our Ajax call we could use promises like this:
function ajax(url) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.onload = function() {
resolve(this.responseText);
};
xhr.onerror = reject;
xhr.open('GET', url);
xhr.send();
});
}
ajax("/echo/json")
.then(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
})
.catch(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Describing all the advantages that promise offer is beyond the scope of this answer, but if you write new code, you should seriously consider them. They provide a great abstraction and separation of your code.
More information about promises: HTML5 rocks - JavaScript Promises
Side note: jQuery's deferred objects
Deferred objects are jQuery's custom implementation of promises (before the Promise API was standardized). They behave almost like promises but expose a slightly different API.
Every Ajax method of jQuery already returns a "deferred object" (actually a promise of a deferred object) which you can just return from your function:
function ajax() {
return $.ajax(...);
}
ajax().done(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
}).fail(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Side note: Promise gotchas
Keep in mind that promises and deferred objects are just containers for a future value, they are not the value itself. For example, suppose you had the following:
function checkPassword() {
return $.ajax({
url: '/password',
data: {
username: $('#username').val(),
password: $('#password').val()
},
type: 'POST',
dataType: 'json'
});
}
if (checkPassword()) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
}
This code misunderstands the above asynchrony issues. Specifically, $.ajax()
doesn't freeze the code while it checks the '/password' page on your server - it sends a request to the server and while it waits, immediately returns a jQuery Ajax Deferred object, not the response from the server. That means the if
statement is going to always get this Deferred object, treat it as true
, and proceed as though the user is logged in. Not good.
But the fix is easy:
checkPassword()
.done(function(r) {
if (r) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
} else {
// Tell the user their password was bad
}
})
.fail(function(x) {
// Tell the user something bad happened
});
Not recommended: Synchronous "Ajax" calls
As I mentioned, some(!) asynchronous operations have synchronous counterparts. I don't advocate their use, but for completeness' sake, here is how you would perform a synchronous call:
Without jQuery
If you directly use a XMLHTTPRequest
object, pass false
as third argument to .open
.
jQuery
If you use jQuery, you can set the async
option to false
. Note that this option is deprecated since jQuery 1.8.
You can then either still use a success
callback or access the responseText
property of the jqXHR object:
function foo() {
var jqXHR = $.ajax({
//...
async: false
});
return jqXHR.responseText;
}
If you use any other jQuery Ajax method, such as $.get
, $.getJSON
, etc., you have to change it to $.ajax
(since you can only pass configuration parameters to $.ajax
).
Heads up! It is not possible to make a synchronous JSONP request. JSONP by its very nature is always asynchronous (one more reason to not even consider this option).
61
@Pommy: If you want to use jQuery, you have to include it. Please refer to docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:Getting_Started_with_jQuery.
– Felix Kling
Jan 17 '13 at 10:47
5
In Solution 1, sub jQuery, I could not understand this line:If you use any other jQuery AJAX method, such as $.get, $.getJSON, etc., you have them to $.ajax.
(Yes, I realize my nick is a tad ironic in this case)
– gibberish
Feb 6 '13 at 21:07
23
@gibberish: Mmmh, I don't know how it can be made clearer. Do you see howfoo
is called and a function is passed to it (foo(function(result) {....});
)?result
is used inside this function and is the response of the Ajax request. To refer to this function, the first parameter of foo is calledcallback
and assigned tosuccess
instead of an anonymous function. So,$.ajax
will callcallback
when the request was successful. I tried to explain it a bit more.
– Felix Kling
Feb 6 '13 at 23:29
33
The Chat for this question is dead so I'm not sure where to propose outlined changes, but I propose: 1) Change the synchronous part to a simple discussion of why it's bad with no code example of how to do it. 2) Remove/merge the callback examples to only show the more flexible Deferred approach, which I think may also be a little easier to follow for those learning Javascript.
– Chris Moschini
Apr 16 '13 at 2:45
10
@Jessi: I think you misunderstood that part of the answer. You cannot use$.getJSON
if you want the Ajax request to be synchronous. However, you should not event want the request to be synchronous, so that doesn't apply. You should be using callbacks or promises to handle the response, as it is explained earlier in the answer.
– Felix Kling
Oct 8 '15 at 17:44
|
show 31 more comments
→ For a more general explanation of async behaviour with different examples, please see Why is my variable unaltered after I modify it inside of a function? - Asynchronous code reference
→ If you already understand the problem, skip to the possible solutions below.
The problem
The A in Ajax stands for asynchronous . That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, $.ajax
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
Here is an analogy which hopefully makes the difference between synchronous and asynchronous flow clearer:
Synchronous
Imagine you make a phone call to a friend and ask him to look something up for you. Although it might take a while, you wait on the phone and stare into space, until your friend gives you the answer that you needed.
The same is happening when you make a function call containing "normal" code:
function findItem() {
var item;
while(item_not_found) {
// search
}
return item;
}
var item = findItem();
// Do something with item
doSomethingElse();
Even though findItem
might take a long time to execute, any code coming after var item = findItem();
has to wait until the function returns the result.
Asynchronous
You call your friend again for the same reason. But this time you tell him that you are in a hurry and he should call you back on your mobile phone. You hang up, leave the house and do whatever you planned to do. Once your friend calls you back, you are dealing with the information he gave to you.
That's exactly what's happening when you do an Ajax request.
findItem(function(item) {
// Do something with item
});
doSomethingElse();
Instead of waiting for the response, the execution continues immediately and the statement after the Ajax call is executed. To get the response eventually, you provide a function to be called once the response was received, a callback (notice something? call back ?). Any statement coming after that call is executed before the callback is called.
Solution(s)
Embrace the asynchronous nature of JavaScript! While certain asynchronous operations provide synchronous counterparts (so does "Ajax"), it's generally discouraged to use them, especially in a browser context.
Why is it bad do you ask?
JavaScript runs in the UI thread of the browser and any long running process will lock the UI, making it unresponsive. Additionally, there is an upper limit on the execution time for JavaScript and the browser will ask the user whether to continue the execution or not.
All of this is really bad user experience. The user won't be able to tell whether everything is working fine or not. Furthermore, the effect will be worse for users with a slow connection.
In the following we will look at three different solutions that are all building on top of each other:
Promises withasync/await
(ES2017+, available in older browsers if you use a transpiler or regenerator)
Callbacks (popular in node)
Promises withthen()
(ES2015+, available in older browsers if you use one of the many promise libraries)
All three are available in current browsers, and node 7+.
ES2017+: Promises with async/await
The ECMAScript version released in 2017 introduced syntax-level support for asynchronous functions. With the help of async
and await
, you can write asynchronous in a "synchronous style". The code is still asynchronous, but it's easier to read/understand.
async/await
builds on top of promises: an async
function always returns a promise. await
"unwraps" a promise and either result in the value the promise was resolved with or throws an error if the promise was rejected.
Important: You can only use await
inside an async
function. Right now, top-level await
isn't yet supported, so you might have to make an async IIFE to start an async
context.
You can read more about async
and await
on MDN.
Here is an example that builds on top of delay above:
// Using 'superagent' which will return a promise.
var superagent = require('superagent')
// This is isn't declared as `async` because it already returns a promise
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
async function getAllBooks() {
try {
// GET a list of book IDs of the current user
var bookIDs = await superagent.get('/user/books');
// wait for 3 seconds (just for the sake of this example)
await delay();
// GET information about each book
return await superagent.get('/books/ids='+JSON.stringify(bookIDs));
} catch(error) {
// If any of the awaited promises was rejected, this catch block
// would catch the rejection reason
return null;
}
}
// Start an IIFE to use `await` at the top level
(async function(){
let books = await getAllBooks();
console.log(books);
})();
Current browser and node versions support async/await
. You can also support older environments by transforming your code to ES5 with the help of regenerator (or tools that use regenerator, such as Babel).
Let functions accept callbacks
A callback is simply a function passed to another function. That other function can call the function passed whenever it is ready. In the context of an asynchronous process, the callback will be called whenever the asynchronous process is done. Usually, the result is passed to the callback.
In the example of the question, you can make foo
accept a callback and use it as success
callback. So this
var result = foo();
// Code that depends on 'result'
becomes
foo(function(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
});
Here we defined the function "inline" but you can pass any function reference:
function myCallback(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
}
foo(myCallback);
foo
itself is defined as follows:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: callback
});
}
callback
will refer to the function we pass to foo
when we call it and we simply pass it on to success
. I.e. once the Ajax request is successful, $.ajax
will call callback
and pass the response to the callback (which can be referred to with result
, since this is how we defined the callback).
You can also process the response before passing it to the callback:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: function(response) {
// For example, filter the response
callback(filtered_response);
}
});
}
It's easier to write code using callbacks than it may seem. After all, JavaScript in the browser is heavily event-driven (DOM events). Receiving the Ajax response is nothing else but an event.
Difficulties could arise when you have to work with third-party code, but most problems can be solved by just thinking through the application flow.
ES2015+: Promises with then()
The Promise API is a new feature of ECMAScript 6 (ES2015), but it has good browser support already. There are also many libraries which implement the standard Promises API and provide additional methods to ease the use and composition of asynchronous functions (e.g. bluebird).
Promises are containers for future values. When the promise receives the value (it is resolved) or when it is cancelled (rejected), it notifies all of its "listeners" who want to access this value.
The advantage over plain callbacks is that they allow you to decouple your code and they are easier to compose.
Here is a simple example of using a promise:
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
delay()
.then(function(v) { // `delay` returns a promise
console.log(v); // Log the value once it is resolved
})
.catch(function(v) {
// Or do something else if it is rejected
// (it would not happen in this example, since `reject` is not called).
});
Applied to our Ajax call we could use promises like this:
function ajax(url) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.onload = function() {
resolve(this.responseText);
};
xhr.onerror = reject;
xhr.open('GET', url);
xhr.send();
});
}
ajax("/echo/json")
.then(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
})
.catch(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Describing all the advantages that promise offer is beyond the scope of this answer, but if you write new code, you should seriously consider them. They provide a great abstraction and separation of your code.
More information about promises: HTML5 rocks - JavaScript Promises
Side note: jQuery's deferred objects
Deferred objects are jQuery's custom implementation of promises (before the Promise API was standardized). They behave almost like promises but expose a slightly different API.
Every Ajax method of jQuery already returns a "deferred object" (actually a promise of a deferred object) which you can just return from your function:
function ajax() {
return $.ajax(...);
}
ajax().done(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
}).fail(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Side note: Promise gotchas
Keep in mind that promises and deferred objects are just containers for a future value, they are not the value itself. For example, suppose you had the following:
function checkPassword() {
return $.ajax({
url: '/password',
data: {
username: $('#username').val(),
password: $('#password').val()
},
type: 'POST',
dataType: 'json'
});
}
if (checkPassword()) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
}
This code misunderstands the above asynchrony issues. Specifically, $.ajax()
doesn't freeze the code while it checks the '/password' page on your server - it sends a request to the server and while it waits, immediately returns a jQuery Ajax Deferred object, not the response from the server. That means the if
statement is going to always get this Deferred object, treat it as true
, and proceed as though the user is logged in. Not good.
But the fix is easy:
checkPassword()
.done(function(r) {
if (r) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
} else {
// Tell the user their password was bad
}
})
.fail(function(x) {
// Tell the user something bad happened
});
Not recommended: Synchronous "Ajax" calls
As I mentioned, some(!) asynchronous operations have synchronous counterparts. I don't advocate their use, but for completeness' sake, here is how you would perform a synchronous call:
Without jQuery
If you directly use a XMLHTTPRequest
object, pass false
as third argument to .open
.
jQuery
If you use jQuery, you can set the async
option to false
. Note that this option is deprecated since jQuery 1.8.
You can then either still use a success
callback or access the responseText
property of the jqXHR object:
function foo() {
var jqXHR = $.ajax({
//...
async: false
});
return jqXHR.responseText;
}
If you use any other jQuery Ajax method, such as $.get
, $.getJSON
, etc., you have to change it to $.ajax
(since you can only pass configuration parameters to $.ajax
).
Heads up! It is not possible to make a synchronous JSONP request. JSONP by its very nature is always asynchronous (one more reason to not even consider this option).
61
@Pommy: If you want to use jQuery, you have to include it. Please refer to docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:Getting_Started_with_jQuery.
– Felix Kling
Jan 17 '13 at 10:47
5
In Solution 1, sub jQuery, I could not understand this line:If you use any other jQuery AJAX method, such as $.get, $.getJSON, etc., you have them to $.ajax.
(Yes, I realize my nick is a tad ironic in this case)
– gibberish
Feb 6 '13 at 21:07
23
@gibberish: Mmmh, I don't know how it can be made clearer. Do you see howfoo
is called and a function is passed to it (foo(function(result) {....});
)?result
is used inside this function and is the response of the Ajax request. To refer to this function, the first parameter of foo is calledcallback
and assigned tosuccess
instead of an anonymous function. So,$.ajax
will callcallback
when the request was successful. I tried to explain it a bit more.
– Felix Kling
Feb 6 '13 at 23:29
33
The Chat for this question is dead so I'm not sure where to propose outlined changes, but I propose: 1) Change the synchronous part to a simple discussion of why it's bad with no code example of how to do it. 2) Remove/merge the callback examples to only show the more flexible Deferred approach, which I think may also be a little easier to follow for those learning Javascript.
– Chris Moschini
Apr 16 '13 at 2:45
10
@Jessi: I think you misunderstood that part of the answer. You cannot use$.getJSON
if you want the Ajax request to be synchronous. However, you should not event want the request to be synchronous, so that doesn't apply. You should be using callbacks or promises to handle the response, as it is explained earlier in the answer.
– Felix Kling
Oct 8 '15 at 17:44
|
show 31 more comments
→ For a more general explanation of async behaviour with different examples, please see Why is my variable unaltered after I modify it inside of a function? - Asynchronous code reference
→ If you already understand the problem, skip to the possible solutions below.
The problem
The A in Ajax stands for asynchronous . That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, $.ajax
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
Here is an analogy which hopefully makes the difference between synchronous and asynchronous flow clearer:
Synchronous
Imagine you make a phone call to a friend and ask him to look something up for you. Although it might take a while, you wait on the phone and stare into space, until your friend gives you the answer that you needed.
The same is happening when you make a function call containing "normal" code:
function findItem() {
var item;
while(item_not_found) {
// search
}
return item;
}
var item = findItem();
// Do something with item
doSomethingElse();
Even though findItem
might take a long time to execute, any code coming after var item = findItem();
has to wait until the function returns the result.
Asynchronous
You call your friend again for the same reason. But this time you tell him that you are in a hurry and he should call you back on your mobile phone. You hang up, leave the house and do whatever you planned to do. Once your friend calls you back, you are dealing with the information he gave to you.
That's exactly what's happening when you do an Ajax request.
findItem(function(item) {
// Do something with item
});
doSomethingElse();
Instead of waiting for the response, the execution continues immediately and the statement after the Ajax call is executed. To get the response eventually, you provide a function to be called once the response was received, a callback (notice something? call back ?). Any statement coming after that call is executed before the callback is called.
Solution(s)
Embrace the asynchronous nature of JavaScript! While certain asynchronous operations provide synchronous counterparts (so does "Ajax"), it's generally discouraged to use them, especially in a browser context.
Why is it bad do you ask?
JavaScript runs in the UI thread of the browser and any long running process will lock the UI, making it unresponsive. Additionally, there is an upper limit on the execution time for JavaScript and the browser will ask the user whether to continue the execution or not.
All of this is really bad user experience. The user won't be able to tell whether everything is working fine or not. Furthermore, the effect will be worse for users with a slow connection.
In the following we will look at three different solutions that are all building on top of each other:
Promises withasync/await
(ES2017+, available in older browsers if you use a transpiler or regenerator)
Callbacks (popular in node)
Promises withthen()
(ES2015+, available in older browsers if you use one of the many promise libraries)
All three are available in current browsers, and node 7+.
ES2017+: Promises with async/await
The ECMAScript version released in 2017 introduced syntax-level support for asynchronous functions. With the help of async
and await
, you can write asynchronous in a "synchronous style". The code is still asynchronous, but it's easier to read/understand.
async/await
builds on top of promises: an async
function always returns a promise. await
"unwraps" a promise and either result in the value the promise was resolved with or throws an error if the promise was rejected.
Important: You can only use await
inside an async
function. Right now, top-level await
isn't yet supported, so you might have to make an async IIFE to start an async
context.
You can read more about async
and await
on MDN.
Here is an example that builds on top of delay above:
// Using 'superagent' which will return a promise.
var superagent = require('superagent')
// This is isn't declared as `async` because it already returns a promise
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
async function getAllBooks() {
try {
// GET a list of book IDs of the current user
var bookIDs = await superagent.get('/user/books');
// wait for 3 seconds (just for the sake of this example)
await delay();
// GET information about each book
return await superagent.get('/books/ids='+JSON.stringify(bookIDs));
} catch(error) {
// If any of the awaited promises was rejected, this catch block
// would catch the rejection reason
return null;
}
}
// Start an IIFE to use `await` at the top level
(async function(){
let books = await getAllBooks();
console.log(books);
})();
Current browser and node versions support async/await
. You can also support older environments by transforming your code to ES5 with the help of regenerator (or tools that use regenerator, such as Babel).
Let functions accept callbacks
A callback is simply a function passed to another function. That other function can call the function passed whenever it is ready. In the context of an asynchronous process, the callback will be called whenever the asynchronous process is done. Usually, the result is passed to the callback.
In the example of the question, you can make foo
accept a callback and use it as success
callback. So this
var result = foo();
// Code that depends on 'result'
becomes
foo(function(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
});
Here we defined the function "inline" but you can pass any function reference:
function myCallback(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
}
foo(myCallback);
foo
itself is defined as follows:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: callback
});
}
callback
will refer to the function we pass to foo
when we call it and we simply pass it on to success
. I.e. once the Ajax request is successful, $.ajax
will call callback
and pass the response to the callback (which can be referred to with result
, since this is how we defined the callback).
You can also process the response before passing it to the callback:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: function(response) {
// For example, filter the response
callback(filtered_response);
}
});
}
It's easier to write code using callbacks than it may seem. After all, JavaScript in the browser is heavily event-driven (DOM events). Receiving the Ajax response is nothing else but an event.
Difficulties could arise when you have to work with third-party code, but most problems can be solved by just thinking through the application flow.
ES2015+: Promises with then()
The Promise API is a new feature of ECMAScript 6 (ES2015), but it has good browser support already. There are also many libraries which implement the standard Promises API and provide additional methods to ease the use and composition of asynchronous functions (e.g. bluebird).
Promises are containers for future values. When the promise receives the value (it is resolved) or when it is cancelled (rejected), it notifies all of its "listeners" who want to access this value.
The advantage over plain callbacks is that they allow you to decouple your code and they are easier to compose.
Here is a simple example of using a promise:
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
delay()
.then(function(v) { // `delay` returns a promise
console.log(v); // Log the value once it is resolved
})
.catch(function(v) {
// Or do something else if it is rejected
// (it would not happen in this example, since `reject` is not called).
});
Applied to our Ajax call we could use promises like this:
function ajax(url) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.onload = function() {
resolve(this.responseText);
};
xhr.onerror = reject;
xhr.open('GET', url);
xhr.send();
});
}
ajax("/echo/json")
.then(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
})
.catch(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Describing all the advantages that promise offer is beyond the scope of this answer, but if you write new code, you should seriously consider them. They provide a great abstraction and separation of your code.
More information about promises: HTML5 rocks - JavaScript Promises
Side note: jQuery's deferred objects
Deferred objects are jQuery's custom implementation of promises (before the Promise API was standardized). They behave almost like promises but expose a slightly different API.
Every Ajax method of jQuery already returns a "deferred object" (actually a promise of a deferred object) which you can just return from your function:
function ajax() {
return $.ajax(...);
}
ajax().done(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
}).fail(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Side note: Promise gotchas
Keep in mind that promises and deferred objects are just containers for a future value, they are not the value itself. For example, suppose you had the following:
function checkPassword() {
return $.ajax({
url: '/password',
data: {
username: $('#username').val(),
password: $('#password').val()
},
type: 'POST',
dataType: 'json'
});
}
if (checkPassword()) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
}
This code misunderstands the above asynchrony issues. Specifically, $.ajax()
doesn't freeze the code while it checks the '/password' page on your server - it sends a request to the server and while it waits, immediately returns a jQuery Ajax Deferred object, not the response from the server. That means the if
statement is going to always get this Deferred object, treat it as true
, and proceed as though the user is logged in. Not good.
But the fix is easy:
checkPassword()
.done(function(r) {
if (r) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
} else {
// Tell the user their password was bad
}
})
.fail(function(x) {
// Tell the user something bad happened
});
Not recommended: Synchronous "Ajax" calls
As I mentioned, some(!) asynchronous operations have synchronous counterparts. I don't advocate their use, but for completeness' sake, here is how you would perform a synchronous call:
Without jQuery
If you directly use a XMLHTTPRequest
object, pass false
as third argument to .open
.
jQuery
If you use jQuery, you can set the async
option to false
. Note that this option is deprecated since jQuery 1.8.
You can then either still use a success
callback or access the responseText
property of the jqXHR object:
function foo() {
var jqXHR = $.ajax({
//...
async: false
});
return jqXHR.responseText;
}
If you use any other jQuery Ajax method, such as $.get
, $.getJSON
, etc., you have to change it to $.ajax
(since you can only pass configuration parameters to $.ajax
).
Heads up! It is not possible to make a synchronous JSONP request. JSONP by its very nature is always asynchronous (one more reason to not even consider this option).
→ For a more general explanation of async behaviour with different examples, please see Why is my variable unaltered after I modify it inside of a function? - Asynchronous code reference
→ If you already understand the problem, skip to the possible solutions below.
The problem
The A in Ajax stands for asynchronous . That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, $.ajax
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
Here is an analogy which hopefully makes the difference between synchronous and asynchronous flow clearer:
Synchronous
Imagine you make a phone call to a friend and ask him to look something up for you. Although it might take a while, you wait on the phone and stare into space, until your friend gives you the answer that you needed.
The same is happening when you make a function call containing "normal" code:
function findItem() {
var item;
while(item_not_found) {
// search
}
return item;
}
var item = findItem();
// Do something with item
doSomethingElse();
Even though findItem
might take a long time to execute, any code coming after var item = findItem();
has to wait until the function returns the result.
Asynchronous
You call your friend again for the same reason. But this time you tell him that you are in a hurry and he should call you back on your mobile phone. You hang up, leave the house and do whatever you planned to do. Once your friend calls you back, you are dealing with the information he gave to you.
That's exactly what's happening when you do an Ajax request.
findItem(function(item) {
// Do something with item
});
doSomethingElse();
Instead of waiting for the response, the execution continues immediately and the statement after the Ajax call is executed. To get the response eventually, you provide a function to be called once the response was received, a callback (notice something? call back ?). Any statement coming after that call is executed before the callback is called.
Solution(s)
Embrace the asynchronous nature of JavaScript! While certain asynchronous operations provide synchronous counterparts (so does "Ajax"), it's generally discouraged to use them, especially in a browser context.
Why is it bad do you ask?
JavaScript runs in the UI thread of the browser and any long running process will lock the UI, making it unresponsive. Additionally, there is an upper limit on the execution time for JavaScript and the browser will ask the user whether to continue the execution or not.
All of this is really bad user experience. The user won't be able to tell whether everything is working fine or not. Furthermore, the effect will be worse for users with a slow connection.
In the following we will look at three different solutions that are all building on top of each other:
Promises withasync/await
(ES2017+, available in older browsers if you use a transpiler or regenerator)
Callbacks (popular in node)
Promises withthen()
(ES2015+, available in older browsers if you use one of the many promise libraries)
All three are available in current browsers, and node 7+.
ES2017+: Promises with async/await
The ECMAScript version released in 2017 introduced syntax-level support for asynchronous functions. With the help of async
and await
, you can write asynchronous in a "synchronous style". The code is still asynchronous, but it's easier to read/understand.
async/await
builds on top of promises: an async
function always returns a promise. await
"unwraps" a promise and either result in the value the promise was resolved with or throws an error if the promise was rejected.
Important: You can only use await
inside an async
function. Right now, top-level await
isn't yet supported, so you might have to make an async IIFE to start an async
context.
You can read more about async
and await
on MDN.
Here is an example that builds on top of delay above:
// Using 'superagent' which will return a promise.
var superagent = require('superagent')
// This is isn't declared as `async` because it already returns a promise
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
async function getAllBooks() {
try {
// GET a list of book IDs of the current user
var bookIDs = await superagent.get('/user/books');
// wait for 3 seconds (just for the sake of this example)
await delay();
// GET information about each book
return await superagent.get('/books/ids='+JSON.stringify(bookIDs));
} catch(error) {
// If any of the awaited promises was rejected, this catch block
// would catch the rejection reason
return null;
}
}
// Start an IIFE to use `await` at the top level
(async function(){
let books = await getAllBooks();
console.log(books);
})();
Current browser and node versions support async/await
. You can also support older environments by transforming your code to ES5 with the help of regenerator (or tools that use regenerator, such as Babel).
Let functions accept callbacks
A callback is simply a function passed to another function. That other function can call the function passed whenever it is ready. In the context of an asynchronous process, the callback will be called whenever the asynchronous process is done. Usually, the result is passed to the callback.
In the example of the question, you can make foo
accept a callback and use it as success
callback. So this
var result = foo();
// Code that depends on 'result'
becomes
foo(function(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
});
Here we defined the function "inline" but you can pass any function reference:
function myCallback(result) {
// Code that depends on 'result'
}
foo(myCallback);
foo
itself is defined as follows:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: callback
});
}
callback
will refer to the function we pass to foo
when we call it and we simply pass it on to success
. I.e. once the Ajax request is successful, $.ajax
will call callback
and pass the response to the callback (which can be referred to with result
, since this is how we defined the callback).
You can also process the response before passing it to the callback:
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
// ...
success: function(response) {
// For example, filter the response
callback(filtered_response);
}
});
}
It's easier to write code using callbacks than it may seem. After all, JavaScript in the browser is heavily event-driven (DOM events). Receiving the Ajax response is nothing else but an event.
Difficulties could arise when you have to work with third-party code, but most problems can be solved by just thinking through the application flow.
ES2015+: Promises with then()
The Promise API is a new feature of ECMAScript 6 (ES2015), but it has good browser support already. There are also many libraries which implement the standard Promises API and provide additional methods to ease the use and composition of asynchronous functions (e.g. bluebird).
Promises are containers for future values. When the promise receives the value (it is resolved) or when it is cancelled (rejected), it notifies all of its "listeners" who want to access this value.
The advantage over plain callbacks is that they allow you to decouple your code and they are easier to compose.
Here is a simple example of using a promise:
function delay() {
// `delay` returns a promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
// Only `delay` is able to resolve or reject the promise
setTimeout(function() {
resolve(42); // After 3 seconds, resolve the promise with value 42
}, 3000);
});
}
delay()
.then(function(v) { // `delay` returns a promise
console.log(v); // Log the value once it is resolved
})
.catch(function(v) {
// Or do something else if it is rejected
// (it would not happen in this example, since `reject` is not called).
});
Applied to our Ajax call we could use promises like this:
function ajax(url) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.onload = function() {
resolve(this.responseText);
};
xhr.onerror = reject;
xhr.open('GET', url);
xhr.send();
});
}
ajax("/echo/json")
.then(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
})
.catch(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Describing all the advantages that promise offer is beyond the scope of this answer, but if you write new code, you should seriously consider them. They provide a great abstraction and separation of your code.
More information about promises: HTML5 rocks - JavaScript Promises
Side note: jQuery's deferred objects
Deferred objects are jQuery's custom implementation of promises (before the Promise API was standardized). They behave almost like promises but expose a slightly different API.
Every Ajax method of jQuery already returns a "deferred object" (actually a promise of a deferred object) which you can just return from your function:
function ajax() {
return $.ajax(...);
}
ajax().done(function(result) {
// Code depending on result
}).fail(function() {
// An error occurred
});
Side note: Promise gotchas
Keep in mind that promises and deferred objects are just containers for a future value, they are not the value itself. For example, suppose you had the following:
function checkPassword() {
return $.ajax({
url: '/password',
data: {
username: $('#username').val(),
password: $('#password').val()
},
type: 'POST',
dataType: 'json'
});
}
if (checkPassword()) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
}
This code misunderstands the above asynchrony issues. Specifically, $.ajax()
doesn't freeze the code while it checks the '/password' page on your server - it sends a request to the server and while it waits, immediately returns a jQuery Ajax Deferred object, not the response from the server. That means the if
statement is going to always get this Deferred object, treat it as true
, and proceed as though the user is logged in. Not good.
But the fix is easy:
checkPassword()
.done(function(r) {
if (r) {
// Tell the user they're logged in
} else {
// Tell the user their password was bad
}
})
.fail(function(x) {
// Tell the user something bad happened
});
Not recommended: Synchronous "Ajax" calls
As I mentioned, some(!) asynchronous operations have synchronous counterparts. I don't advocate their use, but for completeness' sake, here is how you would perform a synchronous call:
Without jQuery
If you directly use a XMLHTTPRequest
object, pass false
as third argument to .open
.
jQuery
If you use jQuery, you can set the async
option to false
. Note that this option is deprecated since jQuery 1.8.
You can then either still use a success
callback or access the responseText
property of the jqXHR object:
function foo() {
var jqXHR = $.ajax({
//...
async: false
});
return jqXHR.responseText;
}
If you use any other jQuery Ajax method, such as $.get
, $.getJSON
, etc., you have to change it to $.ajax
(since you can only pass configuration parameters to $.ajax
).
Heads up! It is not possible to make a synchronous JSONP request. JSONP by its very nature is always asynchronous (one more reason to not even consider this option).
edited Dec 11 '18 at 16:51
Johan Wentholt
2,540618
2,540618
answered Jan 8 '13 at 17:06
Felix KlingFelix Kling
548k126849909
548k126849909
61
@Pommy: If you want to use jQuery, you have to include it. Please refer to docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:Getting_Started_with_jQuery.
– Felix Kling
Jan 17 '13 at 10:47
5
In Solution 1, sub jQuery, I could not understand this line:If you use any other jQuery AJAX method, such as $.get, $.getJSON, etc., you have them to $.ajax.
(Yes, I realize my nick is a tad ironic in this case)
– gibberish
Feb 6 '13 at 21:07
23
@gibberish: Mmmh, I don't know how it can be made clearer. Do you see howfoo
is called and a function is passed to it (foo(function(result) {....});
)?result
is used inside this function and is the response of the Ajax request. To refer to this function, the first parameter of foo is calledcallback
and assigned tosuccess
instead of an anonymous function. So,$.ajax
will callcallback
when the request was successful. I tried to explain it a bit more.
– Felix Kling
Feb 6 '13 at 23:29
33
The Chat for this question is dead so I'm not sure where to propose outlined changes, but I propose: 1) Change the synchronous part to a simple discussion of why it's bad with no code example of how to do it. 2) Remove/merge the callback examples to only show the more flexible Deferred approach, which I think may also be a little easier to follow for those learning Javascript.
– Chris Moschini
Apr 16 '13 at 2:45
10
@Jessi: I think you misunderstood that part of the answer. You cannot use$.getJSON
if you want the Ajax request to be synchronous. However, you should not event want the request to be synchronous, so that doesn't apply. You should be using callbacks or promises to handle the response, as it is explained earlier in the answer.
– Felix Kling
Oct 8 '15 at 17:44
|
show 31 more comments
61
@Pommy: If you want to use jQuery, you have to include it. Please refer to docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:Getting_Started_with_jQuery.
– Felix Kling
Jan 17 '13 at 10:47
5
In Solution 1, sub jQuery, I could not understand this line:If you use any other jQuery AJAX method, such as $.get, $.getJSON, etc., you have them to $.ajax.
(Yes, I realize my nick is a tad ironic in this case)
– gibberish
Feb 6 '13 at 21:07
23
@gibberish: Mmmh, I don't know how it can be made clearer. Do you see howfoo
is called and a function is passed to it (foo(function(result) {....});
)?result
is used inside this function and is the response of the Ajax request. To refer to this function, the first parameter of foo is calledcallback
and assigned tosuccess
instead of an anonymous function. So,$.ajax
will callcallback
when the request was successful. I tried to explain it a bit more.
– Felix Kling
Feb 6 '13 at 23:29
33
The Chat for this question is dead so I'm not sure where to propose outlined changes, but I propose: 1) Change the synchronous part to a simple discussion of why it's bad with no code example of how to do it. 2) Remove/merge the callback examples to only show the more flexible Deferred approach, which I think may also be a little easier to follow for those learning Javascript.
– Chris Moschini
Apr 16 '13 at 2:45
10
@Jessi: I think you misunderstood that part of the answer. You cannot use$.getJSON
if you want the Ajax request to be synchronous. However, you should not event want the request to be synchronous, so that doesn't apply. You should be using callbacks or promises to handle the response, as it is explained earlier in the answer.
– Felix Kling
Oct 8 '15 at 17:44
61
61
@Pommy: If you want to use jQuery, you have to include it. Please refer to docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:Getting_Started_with_jQuery.
– Felix Kling
Jan 17 '13 at 10:47
@Pommy: If you want to use jQuery, you have to include it. Please refer to docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:Getting_Started_with_jQuery.
– Felix Kling
Jan 17 '13 at 10:47
5
5
In Solution 1, sub jQuery, I could not understand this line:
If you use any other jQuery AJAX method, such as $.get, $.getJSON, etc., you have them to $.ajax.
(Yes, I realize my nick is a tad ironic in this case)– gibberish
Feb 6 '13 at 21:07
In Solution 1, sub jQuery, I could not understand this line:
If you use any other jQuery AJAX method, such as $.get, $.getJSON, etc., you have them to $.ajax.
(Yes, I realize my nick is a tad ironic in this case)– gibberish
Feb 6 '13 at 21:07
23
23
@gibberish: Mmmh, I don't know how it can be made clearer. Do you see how
foo
is called and a function is passed to it (foo(function(result) {....});
)? result
is used inside this function and is the response of the Ajax request. To refer to this function, the first parameter of foo is called callback
and assigned to success
instead of an anonymous function. So, $.ajax
will call callback
when the request was successful. I tried to explain it a bit more.– Felix Kling
Feb 6 '13 at 23:29
@gibberish: Mmmh, I don't know how it can be made clearer. Do you see how
foo
is called and a function is passed to it (foo(function(result) {....});
)? result
is used inside this function and is the response of the Ajax request. To refer to this function, the first parameter of foo is called callback
and assigned to success
instead of an anonymous function. So, $.ajax
will call callback
when the request was successful. I tried to explain it a bit more.– Felix Kling
Feb 6 '13 at 23:29
33
33
The Chat for this question is dead so I'm not sure where to propose outlined changes, but I propose: 1) Change the synchronous part to a simple discussion of why it's bad with no code example of how to do it. 2) Remove/merge the callback examples to only show the more flexible Deferred approach, which I think may also be a little easier to follow for those learning Javascript.
– Chris Moschini
Apr 16 '13 at 2:45
The Chat for this question is dead so I'm not sure where to propose outlined changes, but I propose: 1) Change the synchronous part to a simple discussion of why it's bad with no code example of how to do it. 2) Remove/merge the callback examples to only show the more flexible Deferred approach, which I think may also be a little easier to follow for those learning Javascript.
– Chris Moschini
Apr 16 '13 at 2:45
10
10
@Jessi: I think you misunderstood that part of the answer. You cannot use
$.getJSON
if you want the Ajax request to be synchronous. However, you should not event want the request to be synchronous, so that doesn't apply. You should be using callbacks or promises to handle the response, as it is explained earlier in the answer.– Felix Kling
Oct 8 '15 at 17:44
@Jessi: I think you misunderstood that part of the answer. You cannot use
$.getJSON
if you want the Ajax request to be synchronous. However, you should not event want the request to be synchronous, so that doesn't apply. You should be using callbacks or promises to handle the response, as it is explained earlier in the answer.– Felix Kling
Oct 8 '15 at 17:44
|
show 31 more comments
If you're not using jQuery in your code, this answer is for you
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
return httpRequest.responseText;
}
var result = foo(); // always ends up being 'undefined'
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery for AJAX, I've decided to provide an alternative for people who aren't.
(Note, for those using the new fetch
API, Angular or promises I've added another answer below)
What you're facing
This is a short summary of "Explanation of the problem" from the other answer, if you're not sure after reading this, read that.
The A in AJAX stands for asynchronous. That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, .send
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
This means when you're returning, the listener you've defined did not execute yet, which means the value you're returning has not been defined.
Here is a simple analogy
function getFive(){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
},10);
return a;
}
(Fiddle)
The value of a
returned is undefined
since the a=5
part has not executed yet. AJAX acts like this, you're returning the value before the server got the chance to tell your browser what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed.
function onComplete(a){ // When the code completes, do this
alert(a);
}
function getFive(whenDone){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
whenDone(a);
},10);
}
This is called CPS. Basically, we're passing getFive
an action to perform when it completes, we're telling our code how to react when an event completes (like our AJAX call, or in this case the timeout).
Usage would be:
getFive(onComplete);
Which should alert "5" to the screen. (Fiddle).
Possible solutions
There are basically two ways how to solve this:
- Make the AJAX call synchronous (lets call it SJAX).
- Restructure your code to work properly with callbacks.
1. Synchronous AJAX - Don't do it!!
As for synchronous AJAX, don't do it! Felix's answer raises some compelling arguments about why it's a bad idea. To sum it up, it'll freeze the user's browser until the server returns the response and create a very bad user experience. Here is another short summary taken from MDN on why:
XMLHttpRequest supports both synchronous and asynchronous communications. In general, however, asynchronous requests should be preferred to synchronous requests for performance reasons.
In short, synchronous requests block the execution of code... ...this can cause serious issues...
If you have to do it, you can pass a flag: Here is how:
var request = new XMLHttpRequest();
request.open('GET', 'yourURL', false); // `false` makes the request synchronous
request.send(null);
if (request.status === 200) {// That's HTTP for 'ok'
console.log(request.responseText);
}
2. Restructure code
Let your function accept a callback. In the example code foo
can be made to accept a callback. We'll be telling our code how to react when foo
completes.
So:
var result = foo();
// code that depends on `result` goes here
Becomes:
foo(function(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
});
Here we passed an anonymous function, but we could just as easily pass a reference to an existing function, making it look like:
function myHandler(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
}
foo(myHandler);
For more details on how this sort of callback design is done, check Felix's answer.
Now, let's define foo itself to act accordingly
function foo(callback) {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.onload = function(){ // when the request is loaded
callback(httpRequest.responseText);// we're calling our method
};
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
}
(fiddle)
We have now made our foo function accept an action to run when the AJAX completes successfully, we can extend this further by checking if the response status is not 200 and acting accordingly (create a fail handler and such). Effectively solving our issue.
If you're still having a hard time understanding this read the AJAX getting started guide at MDN.
11
"synchronous requests block the execution of code and can leak memory and events" how can a synchronous request leak memory?
– Matthew G
Aug 16 '13 at 5:54
6
@MatthewG I've added a bounty on it in this question, I'll see what I can fish out. I'm removing the quote from the answer in the mean time.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 16 '13 at 8:28
11
Just for the reference, XHR 2 allows us to use theonload
handler, which only fires whenreadyState
is4
. Of course, it's not supported in IE8. (iirc, may need confirmation.)
– Florian Margaine
Dec 22 '13 at 21:09
5
Your explanation of how to pass an anonymous function as a callback is valid but misleading. The example var bar = foo(); is asking for a variable to be defined, whereas your suggested foo(functim() {}); doesn't define bar
– Robbie Averill
Aug 7 '14 at 10:14
@BenjaminGruenbaum How do I return the content ofresult
in a variable that I can use somewhere else in my code rather than printing it with html?
– MorganFR
Nov 8 '16 at 15:39
|
show 1 more comment
If you're not using jQuery in your code, this answer is for you
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
return httpRequest.responseText;
}
var result = foo(); // always ends up being 'undefined'
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery for AJAX, I've decided to provide an alternative for people who aren't.
(Note, for those using the new fetch
API, Angular or promises I've added another answer below)
What you're facing
This is a short summary of "Explanation of the problem" from the other answer, if you're not sure after reading this, read that.
The A in AJAX stands for asynchronous. That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, .send
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
This means when you're returning, the listener you've defined did not execute yet, which means the value you're returning has not been defined.
Here is a simple analogy
function getFive(){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
},10);
return a;
}
(Fiddle)
The value of a
returned is undefined
since the a=5
part has not executed yet. AJAX acts like this, you're returning the value before the server got the chance to tell your browser what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed.
function onComplete(a){ // When the code completes, do this
alert(a);
}
function getFive(whenDone){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
whenDone(a);
},10);
}
This is called CPS. Basically, we're passing getFive
an action to perform when it completes, we're telling our code how to react when an event completes (like our AJAX call, or in this case the timeout).
Usage would be:
getFive(onComplete);
Which should alert "5" to the screen. (Fiddle).
Possible solutions
There are basically two ways how to solve this:
- Make the AJAX call synchronous (lets call it SJAX).
- Restructure your code to work properly with callbacks.
1. Synchronous AJAX - Don't do it!!
As for synchronous AJAX, don't do it! Felix's answer raises some compelling arguments about why it's a bad idea. To sum it up, it'll freeze the user's browser until the server returns the response and create a very bad user experience. Here is another short summary taken from MDN on why:
XMLHttpRequest supports both synchronous and asynchronous communications. In general, however, asynchronous requests should be preferred to synchronous requests for performance reasons.
In short, synchronous requests block the execution of code... ...this can cause serious issues...
If you have to do it, you can pass a flag: Here is how:
var request = new XMLHttpRequest();
request.open('GET', 'yourURL', false); // `false` makes the request synchronous
request.send(null);
if (request.status === 200) {// That's HTTP for 'ok'
console.log(request.responseText);
}
2. Restructure code
Let your function accept a callback. In the example code foo
can be made to accept a callback. We'll be telling our code how to react when foo
completes.
So:
var result = foo();
// code that depends on `result` goes here
Becomes:
foo(function(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
});
Here we passed an anonymous function, but we could just as easily pass a reference to an existing function, making it look like:
function myHandler(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
}
foo(myHandler);
For more details on how this sort of callback design is done, check Felix's answer.
Now, let's define foo itself to act accordingly
function foo(callback) {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.onload = function(){ // when the request is loaded
callback(httpRequest.responseText);// we're calling our method
};
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
}
(fiddle)
We have now made our foo function accept an action to run when the AJAX completes successfully, we can extend this further by checking if the response status is not 200 and acting accordingly (create a fail handler and such). Effectively solving our issue.
If you're still having a hard time understanding this read the AJAX getting started guide at MDN.
11
"synchronous requests block the execution of code and can leak memory and events" how can a synchronous request leak memory?
– Matthew G
Aug 16 '13 at 5:54
6
@MatthewG I've added a bounty on it in this question, I'll see what I can fish out. I'm removing the quote from the answer in the mean time.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 16 '13 at 8:28
11
Just for the reference, XHR 2 allows us to use theonload
handler, which only fires whenreadyState
is4
. Of course, it's not supported in IE8. (iirc, may need confirmation.)
– Florian Margaine
Dec 22 '13 at 21:09
5
Your explanation of how to pass an anonymous function as a callback is valid but misleading. The example var bar = foo(); is asking for a variable to be defined, whereas your suggested foo(functim() {}); doesn't define bar
– Robbie Averill
Aug 7 '14 at 10:14
@BenjaminGruenbaum How do I return the content ofresult
in a variable that I can use somewhere else in my code rather than printing it with html?
– MorganFR
Nov 8 '16 at 15:39
|
show 1 more comment
If you're not using jQuery in your code, this answer is for you
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
return httpRequest.responseText;
}
var result = foo(); // always ends up being 'undefined'
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery for AJAX, I've decided to provide an alternative for people who aren't.
(Note, for those using the new fetch
API, Angular or promises I've added another answer below)
What you're facing
This is a short summary of "Explanation of the problem" from the other answer, if you're not sure after reading this, read that.
The A in AJAX stands for asynchronous. That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, .send
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
This means when you're returning, the listener you've defined did not execute yet, which means the value you're returning has not been defined.
Here is a simple analogy
function getFive(){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
},10);
return a;
}
(Fiddle)
The value of a
returned is undefined
since the a=5
part has not executed yet. AJAX acts like this, you're returning the value before the server got the chance to tell your browser what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed.
function onComplete(a){ // When the code completes, do this
alert(a);
}
function getFive(whenDone){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
whenDone(a);
},10);
}
This is called CPS. Basically, we're passing getFive
an action to perform when it completes, we're telling our code how to react when an event completes (like our AJAX call, or in this case the timeout).
Usage would be:
getFive(onComplete);
Which should alert "5" to the screen. (Fiddle).
Possible solutions
There are basically two ways how to solve this:
- Make the AJAX call synchronous (lets call it SJAX).
- Restructure your code to work properly with callbacks.
1. Synchronous AJAX - Don't do it!!
As for synchronous AJAX, don't do it! Felix's answer raises some compelling arguments about why it's a bad idea. To sum it up, it'll freeze the user's browser until the server returns the response and create a very bad user experience. Here is another short summary taken from MDN on why:
XMLHttpRequest supports both synchronous and asynchronous communications. In general, however, asynchronous requests should be preferred to synchronous requests for performance reasons.
In short, synchronous requests block the execution of code... ...this can cause serious issues...
If you have to do it, you can pass a flag: Here is how:
var request = new XMLHttpRequest();
request.open('GET', 'yourURL', false); // `false` makes the request synchronous
request.send(null);
if (request.status === 200) {// That's HTTP for 'ok'
console.log(request.responseText);
}
2. Restructure code
Let your function accept a callback. In the example code foo
can be made to accept a callback. We'll be telling our code how to react when foo
completes.
So:
var result = foo();
// code that depends on `result` goes here
Becomes:
foo(function(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
});
Here we passed an anonymous function, but we could just as easily pass a reference to an existing function, making it look like:
function myHandler(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
}
foo(myHandler);
For more details on how this sort of callback design is done, check Felix's answer.
Now, let's define foo itself to act accordingly
function foo(callback) {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.onload = function(){ // when the request is loaded
callback(httpRequest.responseText);// we're calling our method
};
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
}
(fiddle)
We have now made our foo function accept an action to run when the AJAX completes successfully, we can extend this further by checking if the response status is not 200 and acting accordingly (create a fail handler and such). Effectively solving our issue.
If you're still having a hard time understanding this read the AJAX getting started guide at MDN.
If you're not using jQuery in your code, this answer is for you
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
return httpRequest.responseText;
}
var result = foo(); // always ends up being 'undefined'
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery for AJAX, I've decided to provide an alternative for people who aren't.
(Note, for those using the new fetch
API, Angular or promises I've added another answer below)
What you're facing
This is a short summary of "Explanation of the problem" from the other answer, if you're not sure after reading this, read that.
The A in AJAX stands for asynchronous. That means sending the request (or rather receiving the response) is taken out of the normal execution flow. In your example, .send
returns immediately and the next statement, return result;
, is executed before the function you passed as success
callback was even called.
This means when you're returning, the listener you've defined did not execute yet, which means the value you're returning has not been defined.
Here is a simple analogy
function getFive(){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
},10);
return a;
}
(Fiddle)
The value of a
returned is undefined
since the a=5
part has not executed yet. AJAX acts like this, you're returning the value before the server got the chance to tell your browser what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed.
function onComplete(a){ // When the code completes, do this
alert(a);
}
function getFive(whenDone){
var a;
setTimeout(function(){
a=5;
whenDone(a);
},10);
}
This is called CPS. Basically, we're passing getFive
an action to perform when it completes, we're telling our code how to react when an event completes (like our AJAX call, or in this case the timeout).
Usage would be:
getFive(onComplete);
Which should alert "5" to the screen. (Fiddle).
Possible solutions
There are basically two ways how to solve this:
- Make the AJAX call synchronous (lets call it SJAX).
- Restructure your code to work properly with callbacks.
1. Synchronous AJAX - Don't do it!!
As for synchronous AJAX, don't do it! Felix's answer raises some compelling arguments about why it's a bad idea. To sum it up, it'll freeze the user's browser until the server returns the response and create a very bad user experience. Here is another short summary taken from MDN on why:
XMLHttpRequest supports both synchronous and asynchronous communications. In general, however, asynchronous requests should be preferred to synchronous requests for performance reasons.
In short, synchronous requests block the execution of code... ...this can cause serious issues...
If you have to do it, you can pass a flag: Here is how:
var request = new XMLHttpRequest();
request.open('GET', 'yourURL', false); // `false` makes the request synchronous
request.send(null);
if (request.status === 200) {// That's HTTP for 'ok'
console.log(request.responseText);
}
2. Restructure code
Let your function accept a callback. In the example code foo
can be made to accept a callback. We'll be telling our code how to react when foo
completes.
So:
var result = foo();
// code that depends on `result` goes here
Becomes:
foo(function(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
});
Here we passed an anonymous function, but we could just as easily pass a reference to an existing function, making it look like:
function myHandler(result) {
// code that depends on `result`
}
foo(myHandler);
For more details on how this sort of callback design is done, check Felix's answer.
Now, let's define foo itself to act accordingly
function foo(callback) {
var httpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
httpRequest.onload = function(){ // when the request is loaded
callback(httpRequest.responseText);// we're calling our method
};
httpRequest.open('GET', "/echo/json");
httpRequest.send();
}
(fiddle)
We have now made our foo function accept an action to run when the AJAX completes successfully, we can extend this further by checking if the response status is not 200 and acting accordingly (create a fail handler and such). Effectively solving our issue.
If you're still having a hard time understanding this read the AJAX getting started guide at MDN.
edited Mar 1 '18 at 1:03
whackamadoodle3000
4,69841231
4,69841231
answered May 29 '13 at 23:30
Benjamin GruenbaumBenjamin Gruenbaum
187k63400436
187k63400436
11
"synchronous requests block the execution of code and can leak memory and events" how can a synchronous request leak memory?
– Matthew G
Aug 16 '13 at 5:54
6
@MatthewG I've added a bounty on it in this question, I'll see what I can fish out. I'm removing the quote from the answer in the mean time.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 16 '13 at 8:28
11
Just for the reference, XHR 2 allows us to use theonload
handler, which only fires whenreadyState
is4
. Of course, it's not supported in IE8. (iirc, may need confirmation.)
– Florian Margaine
Dec 22 '13 at 21:09
5
Your explanation of how to pass an anonymous function as a callback is valid but misleading. The example var bar = foo(); is asking for a variable to be defined, whereas your suggested foo(functim() {}); doesn't define bar
– Robbie Averill
Aug 7 '14 at 10:14
@BenjaminGruenbaum How do I return the content ofresult
in a variable that I can use somewhere else in my code rather than printing it with html?
– MorganFR
Nov 8 '16 at 15:39
|
show 1 more comment
11
"synchronous requests block the execution of code and can leak memory and events" how can a synchronous request leak memory?
– Matthew G
Aug 16 '13 at 5:54
6
@MatthewG I've added a bounty on it in this question, I'll see what I can fish out. I'm removing the quote from the answer in the mean time.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 16 '13 at 8:28
11
Just for the reference, XHR 2 allows us to use theonload
handler, which only fires whenreadyState
is4
. Of course, it's not supported in IE8. (iirc, may need confirmation.)
– Florian Margaine
Dec 22 '13 at 21:09
5
Your explanation of how to pass an anonymous function as a callback is valid but misleading. The example var bar = foo(); is asking for a variable to be defined, whereas your suggested foo(functim() {}); doesn't define bar
– Robbie Averill
Aug 7 '14 at 10:14
@BenjaminGruenbaum How do I return the content ofresult
in a variable that I can use somewhere else in my code rather than printing it with html?
– MorganFR
Nov 8 '16 at 15:39
11
11
"synchronous requests block the execution of code and can leak memory and events" how can a synchronous request leak memory?
– Matthew G
Aug 16 '13 at 5:54
"synchronous requests block the execution of code and can leak memory and events" how can a synchronous request leak memory?
– Matthew G
Aug 16 '13 at 5:54
6
6
@MatthewG I've added a bounty on it in this question, I'll see what I can fish out. I'm removing the quote from the answer in the mean time.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 16 '13 at 8:28
@MatthewG I've added a bounty on it in this question, I'll see what I can fish out. I'm removing the quote from the answer in the mean time.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 16 '13 at 8:28
11
11
Just for the reference, XHR 2 allows us to use the
onload
handler, which only fires when readyState
is 4
. Of course, it's not supported in IE8. (iirc, may need confirmation.)– Florian Margaine
Dec 22 '13 at 21:09
Just for the reference, XHR 2 allows us to use the
onload
handler, which only fires when readyState
is 4
. Of course, it's not supported in IE8. (iirc, may need confirmation.)– Florian Margaine
Dec 22 '13 at 21:09
5
5
Your explanation of how to pass an anonymous function as a callback is valid but misleading. The example var bar = foo(); is asking for a variable to be defined, whereas your suggested foo(functim() {}); doesn't define bar
– Robbie Averill
Aug 7 '14 at 10:14
Your explanation of how to pass an anonymous function as a callback is valid but misleading. The example var bar = foo(); is asking for a variable to be defined, whereas your suggested foo(functim() {}); doesn't define bar
– Robbie Averill
Aug 7 '14 at 10:14
@BenjaminGruenbaum How do I return the content of
result
in a variable that I can use somewhere else in my code rather than printing it with html?– MorganFR
Nov 8 '16 at 15:39
@BenjaminGruenbaum How do I return the content of
result
in a variable that I can use somewhere else in my code rather than printing it with html?– MorganFR
Nov 8 '16 at 15:39
|
show 1 more comment
XMLHttpRequest 2 (first of all read the answers from Benjamin Gruenbaum & Felix Kling)
If you don't use jQuery and want a nice short XMLHttpRequest 2 which works on the modern browsers and also on the mobile browsers I suggest to use it this way:
function ajax(a, b, c){ // URL, callback, just a placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send()
}
As you can see:
- It's shorter than all other functions Listed.
- The callback is set directly (so no extra unnecessary closures).
- It uses the new onload (so you don't have to check for readystate && status)
- There are some other situations which I don't remember that make the XMLHttpRequest 1 annoying.
There are two ways to get the response of this Ajax call (three using the XMLHttpRequest var name):
The simplest:
this.response
Or if for some reason you bind()
the callback to a class:
e.target.response
Example:
function callback(e){
console.log(this.response);
}
ajax('URL', callback);
Or (the above one is better anonymous functions are always a problem):
ajax('URL', function(e){console.log(this.response)});
Nothing easier.
Now some people will probably say that it's better to use onreadystatechange or the even the XMLHttpRequest variable name. That's wrong.
Check out XMLHttpRequest advanced features
It supported all *modern browsers. And I can confirm as I'm using this approach since XMLHttpRequest 2 exists. I never had any type of problem on all browsers I use.
onreadystatechange is only useful if you want to get the headers on state 2.
Using the XMLHttpRequest
variable name is another big error as you need to execute the callback inside the onload/oreadystatechange closures else you lost it.
Now if you want something more complex using post and FormData you can easily extend this function:
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val},placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send(d||null)
}
Again ... it's a very short function, but it does get & post.
Examples of usage:
x(url, callback); // By default it's get so no need to set
x(url, callback, 'post', {'key': 'val'}); // No need to set post data
Or pass a full form element (document.getElementsByTagName('form')[0]
):
var fd = new FormData(form);
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
Or set some custom values:
var fd = new FormData();
fd.append('key', 'val')
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
As you can see I didn't implement sync... it's a bad thing.
Having said that ... why don't do it the easy way?
As mentioned in the comment the use of error && synchronous does completely break the point of the answer. Which is a nice short way to use Ajax in the proper way?
Error handler
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val}, placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.onerror = error;
c.send(d||null)
}
function error(e){
console.log('--Error--', this.type);
console.log('this: ', this);
console.log('Event: ', e)
}
function displayAjax(e){
console.log(e, this);
}
x('WRONGURL', displayAjax);
In the above script, you have an error handler which is statically defined so it does not compromise the function. The error handler can be used for other functions too.
But to really get out an error the only way is to write a wrong URL in which case every browser throws an error.
Error handlers are maybe useful if you set custom headers, set the responseType to blob array buffer or whatever...
Even if you pass 'POSTAPAPAP' as the method it won't throw an error.
Even if you pass 'fdggdgilfdghfldj' as formdata it won't throw an error.
In the first case the error is inside the displayAjax()
under this.statusText
as Method not Allowed
.
In the second case, it simply works. You have to check at the server side if you passed the right post data.
cross-domain not allowed throws error automatically.
In the error response, there are no error codes.
There is only the this.type
which is set to error.
Why add an error handler if you totally have no control over errors?
Most of the errors are returned inside this in the callback function displayAjax()
.
So: No need for error checks if you're able to copy and paste the URL properly. ;)
PS: As the first test I wrote x('x', displayAjax)..., and it totally got a response...??? So I checked the folder where the HTML is located, and there was a file called 'x.xml'. So even if you forget the extension of your file XMLHttpRequest 2 WILL FIND IT. I LOL'd
Read a file synchronous
Don't do that.
If you want to block the browser for a while load a nice big .txt
file synchronous.
function omg(a, c){ // URL
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a, true);
c.send();
return c; // Or c.response
}
Now you can do
var res = omg('thisIsGonnaBlockThePage.txt');
There is no other way to do this in a non-asynchronous way. (Yeah, with setTimeout loop... but seriously?)
Another point is... if you work with APIs or just your own list's files or whatever you always use different functions for each request...
Only if you have a page where you load always the same XML/JSON or whatever you need only one function. In that case, modify a little the Ajax function and replace b with your special function.
The functions above are for basic use.
If you want to EXTEND the function...
Yes, you can.
I'm using a lot of APIs and one of the first functions I integrate into every HTML page is the first Ajax function in this answer, with GET only...
But you can do a lot of stuff with XMLHttpRequest 2:
I made a download manager (using ranges on both sides with resume, filereader, filesystem), various image resizers converters using canvas, populate web SQL databases with base64images and much more... But in these cases you should create a function only for that purpose... sometimes you need a blob, array buffers, you can set headers, override mimetype and there is a lot more...
But the question here is how to return an Ajax response... (I added an easy way.)
11
While this answer is nice (And we all love XHR2 and posting file data and multipart data is totally awesome) - this shows syntactic sugar for posting XHR with JavaScript - you might want to put this in a blog post (I'd like it) or even in a library (not sure about the namex
,ajax
orxhr
might be nicer :)). I don't see how it addresses returning the response from an AJAX call. (someone could still dovar res = x("url")
and not understand why it doesn't work ;)). On a side note - it would be cool if you returnedc
from the method so users can hook onerror
etc.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 5:56
21
2.ajax is meant to be async.. so NO var res=x('url')..
That's the entire point of this question and answers :)
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 17:28
2
why is there a 'c' parameter in the functions, if on the first line you're overwriting whatever value it had? am i missing something?
– Brian H.
Dec 21 '16 at 10:00
1
You can use parameters as a placeholder to avoid writing multiple times "var"
– cocco
Dec 21 '16 at 11:05
6
@cocco So you wrote misleading, unreadable code in a SO answer in order to save a few keystrokes? Please don't do that.
– stone
Oct 8 '17 at 6:20
|
show 1 more comment
XMLHttpRequest 2 (first of all read the answers from Benjamin Gruenbaum & Felix Kling)
If you don't use jQuery and want a nice short XMLHttpRequest 2 which works on the modern browsers and also on the mobile browsers I suggest to use it this way:
function ajax(a, b, c){ // URL, callback, just a placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send()
}
As you can see:
- It's shorter than all other functions Listed.
- The callback is set directly (so no extra unnecessary closures).
- It uses the new onload (so you don't have to check for readystate && status)
- There are some other situations which I don't remember that make the XMLHttpRequest 1 annoying.
There are two ways to get the response of this Ajax call (three using the XMLHttpRequest var name):
The simplest:
this.response
Or if for some reason you bind()
the callback to a class:
e.target.response
Example:
function callback(e){
console.log(this.response);
}
ajax('URL', callback);
Or (the above one is better anonymous functions are always a problem):
ajax('URL', function(e){console.log(this.response)});
Nothing easier.
Now some people will probably say that it's better to use onreadystatechange or the even the XMLHttpRequest variable name. That's wrong.
Check out XMLHttpRequest advanced features
It supported all *modern browsers. And I can confirm as I'm using this approach since XMLHttpRequest 2 exists. I never had any type of problem on all browsers I use.
onreadystatechange is only useful if you want to get the headers on state 2.
Using the XMLHttpRequest
variable name is another big error as you need to execute the callback inside the onload/oreadystatechange closures else you lost it.
Now if you want something more complex using post and FormData you can easily extend this function:
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val},placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send(d||null)
}
Again ... it's a very short function, but it does get & post.
Examples of usage:
x(url, callback); // By default it's get so no need to set
x(url, callback, 'post', {'key': 'val'}); // No need to set post data
Or pass a full form element (document.getElementsByTagName('form')[0]
):
var fd = new FormData(form);
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
Or set some custom values:
var fd = new FormData();
fd.append('key', 'val')
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
As you can see I didn't implement sync... it's a bad thing.
Having said that ... why don't do it the easy way?
As mentioned in the comment the use of error && synchronous does completely break the point of the answer. Which is a nice short way to use Ajax in the proper way?
Error handler
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val}, placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.onerror = error;
c.send(d||null)
}
function error(e){
console.log('--Error--', this.type);
console.log('this: ', this);
console.log('Event: ', e)
}
function displayAjax(e){
console.log(e, this);
}
x('WRONGURL', displayAjax);
In the above script, you have an error handler which is statically defined so it does not compromise the function. The error handler can be used for other functions too.
But to really get out an error the only way is to write a wrong URL in which case every browser throws an error.
Error handlers are maybe useful if you set custom headers, set the responseType to blob array buffer or whatever...
Even if you pass 'POSTAPAPAP' as the method it won't throw an error.
Even if you pass 'fdggdgilfdghfldj' as formdata it won't throw an error.
In the first case the error is inside the displayAjax()
under this.statusText
as Method not Allowed
.
In the second case, it simply works. You have to check at the server side if you passed the right post data.
cross-domain not allowed throws error automatically.
In the error response, there are no error codes.
There is only the this.type
which is set to error.
Why add an error handler if you totally have no control over errors?
Most of the errors are returned inside this in the callback function displayAjax()
.
So: No need for error checks if you're able to copy and paste the URL properly. ;)
PS: As the first test I wrote x('x', displayAjax)..., and it totally got a response...??? So I checked the folder where the HTML is located, and there was a file called 'x.xml'. So even if you forget the extension of your file XMLHttpRequest 2 WILL FIND IT. I LOL'd
Read a file synchronous
Don't do that.
If you want to block the browser for a while load a nice big .txt
file synchronous.
function omg(a, c){ // URL
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a, true);
c.send();
return c; // Or c.response
}
Now you can do
var res = omg('thisIsGonnaBlockThePage.txt');
There is no other way to do this in a non-asynchronous way. (Yeah, with setTimeout loop... but seriously?)
Another point is... if you work with APIs or just your own list's files or whatever you always use different functions for each request...
Only if you have a page where you load always the same XML/JSON or whatever you need only one function. In that case, modify a little the Ajax function and replace b with your special function.
The functions above are for basic use.
If you want to EXTEND the function...
Yes, you can.
I'm using a lot of APIs and one of the first functions I integrate into every HTML page is the first Ajax function in this answer, with GET only...
But you can do a lot of stuff with XMLHttpRequest 2:
I made a download manager (using ranges on both sides with resume, filereader, filesystem), various image resizers converters using canvas, populate web SQL databases with base64images and much more... But in these cases you should create a function only for that purpose... sometimes you need a blob, array buffers, you can set headers, override mimetype and there is a lot more...
But the question here is how to return an Ajax response... (I added an easy way.)
11
While this answer is nice (And we all love XHR2 and posting file data and multipart data is totally awesome) - this shows syntactic sugar for posting XHR with JavaScript - you might want to put this in a blog post (I'd like it) or even in a library (not sure about the namex
,ajax
orxhr
might be nicer :)). I don't see how it addresses returning the response from an AJAX call. (someone could still dovar res = x("url")
and not understand why it doesn't work ;)). On a side note - it would be cool if you returnedc
from the method so users can hook onerror
etc.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 5:56
21
2.ajax is meant to be async.. so NO var res=x('url')..
That's the entire point of this question and answers :)
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 17:28
2
why is there a 'c' parameter in the functions, if on the first line you're overwriting whatever value it had? am i missing something?
– Brian H.
Dec 21 '16 at 10:00
1
You can use parameters as a placeholder to avoid writing multiple times "var"
– cocco
Dec 21 '16 at 11:05
6
@cocco So you wrote misleading, unreadable code in a SO answer in order to save a few keystrokes? Please don't do that.
– stone
Oct 8 '17 at 6:20
|
show 1 more comment
XMLHttpRequest 2 (first of all read the answers from Benjamin Gruenbaum & Felix Kling)
If you don't use jQuery and want a nice short XMLHttpRequest 2 which works on the modern browsers and also on the mobile browsers I suggest to use it this way:
function ajax(a, b, c){ // URL, callback, just a placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send()
}
As you can see:
- It's shorter than all other functions Listed.
- The callback is set directly (so no extra unnecessary closures).
- It uses the new onload (so you don't have to check for readystate && status)
- There are some other situations which I don't remember that make the XMLHttpRequest 1 annoying.
There are two ways to get the response of this Ajax call (three using the XMLHttpRequest var name):
The simplest:
this.response
Or if for some reason you bind()
the callback to a class:
e.target.response
Example:
function callback(e){
console.log(this.response);
}
ajax('URL', callback);
Or (the above one is better anonymous functions are always a problem):
ajax('URL', function(e){console.log(this.response)});
Nothing easier.
Now some people will probably say that it's better to use onreadystatechange or the even the XMLHttpRequest variable name. That's wrong.
Check out XMLHttpRequest advanced features
It supported all *modern browsers. And I can confirm as I'm using this approach since XMLHttpRequest 2 exists. I never had any type of problem on all browsers I use.
onreadystatechange is only useful if you want to get the headers on state 2.
Using the XMLHttpRequest
variable name is another big error as you need to execute the callback inside the onload/oreadystatechange closures else you lost it.
Now if you want something more complex using post and FormData you can easily extend this function:
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val},placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send(d||null)
}
Again ... it's a very short function, but it does get & post.
Examples of usage:
x(url, callback); // By default it's get so no need to set
x(url, callback, 'post', {'key': 'val'}); // No need to set post data
Or pass a full form element (document.getElementsByTagName('form')[0]
):
var fd = new FormData(form);
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
Or set some custom values:
var fd = new FormData();
fd.append('key', 'val')
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
As you can see I didn't implement sync... it's a bad thing.
Having said that ... why don't do it the easy way?
As mentioned in the comment the use of error && synchronous does completely break the point of the answer. Which is a nice short way to use Ajax in the proper way?
Error handler
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val}, placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.onerror = error;
c.send(d||null)
}
function error(e){
console.log('--Error--', this.type);
console.log('this: ', this);
console.log('Event: ', e)
}
function displayAjax(e){
console.log(e, this);
}
x('WRONGURL', displayAjax);
In the above script, you have an error handler which is statically defined so it does not compromise the function. The error handler can be used for other functions too.
But to really get out an error the only way is to write a wrong URL in which case every browser throws an error.
Error handlers are maybe useful if you set custom headers, set the responseType to blob array buffer or whatever...
Even if you pass 'POSTAPAPAP' as the method it won't throw an error.
Even if you pass 'fdggdgilfdghfldj' as formdata it won't throw an error.
In the first case the error is inside the displayAjax()
under this.statusText
as Method not Allowed
.
In the second case, it simply works. You have to check at the server side if you passed the right post data.
cross-domain not allowed throws error automatically.
In the error response, there are no error codes.
There is only the this.type
which is set to error.
Why add an error handler if you totally have no control over errors?
Most of the errors are returned inside this in the callback function displayAjax()
.
So: No need for error checks if you're able to copy and paste the URL properly. ;)
PS: As the first test I wrote x('x', displayAjax)..., and it totally got a response...??? So I checked the folder where the HTML is located, and there was a file called 'x.xml'. So even if you forget the extension of your file XMLHttpRequest 2 WILL FIND IT. I LOL'd
Read a file synchronous
Don't do that.
If you want to block the browser for a while load a nice big .txt
file synchronous.
function omg(a, c){ // URL
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a, true);
c.send();
return c; // Or c.response
}
Now you can do
var res = omg('thisIsGonnaBlockThePage.txt');
There is no other way to do this in a non-asynchronous way. (Yeah, with setTimeout loop... but seriously?)
Another point is... if you work with APIs or just your own list's files or whatever you always use different functions for each request...
Only if you have a page where you load always the same XML/JSON or whatever you need only one function. In that case, modify a little the Ajax function and replace b with your special function.
The functions above are for basic use.
If you want to EXTEND the function...
Yes, you can.
I'm using a lot of APIs and one of the first functions I integrate into every HTML page is the first Ajax function in this answer, with GET only...
But you can do a lot of stuff with XMLHttpRequest 2:
I made a download manager (using ranges on both sides with resume, filereader, filesystem), various image resizers converters using canvas, populate web SQL databases with base64images and much more... But in these cases you should create a function only for that purpose... sometimes you need a blob, array buffers, you can set headers, override mimetype and there is a lot more...
But the question here is how to return an Ajax response... (I added an easy way.)
XMLHttpRequest 2 (first of all read the answers from Benjamin Gruenbaum & Felix Kling)
If you don't use jQuery and want a nice short XMLHttpRequest 2 which works on the modern browsers and also on the mobile browsers I suggest to use it this way:
function ajax(a, b, c){ // URL, callback, just a placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send()
}
As you can see:
- It's shorter than all other functions Listed.
- The callback is set directly (so no extra unnecessary closures).
- It uses the new onload (so you don't have to check for readystate && status)
- There are some other situations which I don't remember that make the XMLHttpRequest 1 annoying.
There are two ways to get the response of this Ajax call (three using the XMLHttpRequest var name):
The simplest:
this.response
Or if for some reason you bind()
the callback to a class:
e.target.response
Example:
function callback(e){
console.log(this.response);
}
ajax('URL', callback);
Or (the above one is better anonymous functions are always a problem):
ajax('URL', function(e){console.log(this.response)});
Nothing easier.
Now some people will probably say that it's better to use onreadystatechange or the even the XMLHttpRequest variable name. That's wrong.
Check out XMLHttpRequest advanced features
It supported all *modern browsers. And I can confirm as I'm using this approach since XMLHttpRequest 2 exists. I never had any type of problem on all browsers I use.
onreadystatechange is only useful if you want to get the headers on state 2.
Using the XMLHttpRequest
variable name is another big error as you need to execute the callback inside the onload/oreadystatechange closures else you lost it.
Now if you want something more complex using post and FormData you can easily extend this function:
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val},placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.send(d||null)
}
Again ... it's a very short function, but it does get & post.
Examples of usage:
x(url, callback); // By default it's get so no need to set
x(url, callback, 'post', {'key': 'val'}); // No need to set post data
Or pass a full form element (document.getElementsByTagName('form')[0]
):
var fd = new FormData(form);
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
Or set some custom values:
var fd = new FormData();
fd.append('key', 'val')
x(url, callback, 'post', fd);
As you can see I didn't implement sync... it's a bad thing.
Having said that ... why don't do it the easy way?
As mentioned in the comment the use of error && synchronous does completely break the point of the answer. Which is a nice short way to use Ajax in the proper way?
Error handler
function x(a, b, e, d, c){ // URL, callback, method, formdata or {key:val}, placeholder
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open(e||'get', a);
c.onload = b;
c.onerror = error;
c.send(d||null)
}
function error(e){
console.log('--Error--', this.type);
console.log('this: ', this);
console.log('Event: ', e)
}
function displayAjax(e){
console.log(e, this);
}
x('WRONGURL', displayAjax);
In the above script, you have an error handler which is statically defined so it does not compromise the function. The error handler can be used for other functions too.
But to really get out an error the only way is to write a wrong URL in which case every browser throws an error.
Error handlers are maybe useful if you set custom headers, set the responseType to blob array buffer or whatever...
Even if you pass 'POSTAPAPAP' as the method it won't throw an error.
Even if you pass 'fdggdgilfdghfldj' as formdata it won't throw an error.
In the first case the error is inside the displayAjax()
under this.statusText
as Method not Allowed
.
In the second case, it simply works. You have to check at the server side if you passed the right post data.
cross-domain not allowed throws error automatically.
In the error response, there are no error codes.
There is only the this.type
which is set to error.
Why add an error handler if you totally have no control over errors?
Most of the errors are returned inside this in the callback function displayAjax()
.
So: No need for error checks if you're able to copy and paste the URL properly. ;)
PS: As the first test I wrote x('x', displayAjax)..., and it totally got a response...??? So I checked the folder where the HTML is located, and there was a file called 'x.xml'. So even if you forget the extension of your file XMLHttpRequest 2 WILL FIND IT. I LOL'd
Read a file synchronous
Don't do that.
If you want to block the browser for a while load a nice big .txt
file synchronous.
function omg(a, c){ // URL
c = new XMLHttpRequest;
c.open('GET', a, true);
c.send();
return c; // Or c.response
}
Now you can do
var res = omg('thisIsGonnaBlockThePage.txt');
There is no other way to do this in a non-asynchronous way. (Yeah, with setTimeout loop... but seriously?)
Another point is... if you work with APIs or just your own list's files or whatever you always use different functions for each request...
Only if you have a page where you load always the same XML/JSON or whatever you need only one function. In that case, modify a little the Ajax function and replace b with your special function.
The functions above are for basic use.
If you want to EXTEND the function...
Yes, you can.
I'm using a lot of APIs and one of the first functions I integrate into every HTML page is the first Ajax function in this answer, with GET only...
But you can do a lot of stuff with XMLHttpRequest 2:
I made a download manager (using ranges on both sides with resume, filereader, filesystem), various image resizers converters using canvas, populate web SQL databases with base64images and much more... But in these cases you should create a function only for that purpose... sometimes you need a blob, array buffers, you can set headers, override mimetype and there is a lot more...
But the question here is how to return an Ajax response... (I added an easy way.)
edited Dec 10 '18 at 9:08
Quentin
642k718661036
642k718661036
answered Aug 19 '13 at 8:06
coccococco
12.3k64069
12.3k64069
11
While this answer is nice (And we all love XHR2 and posting file data and multipart data is totally awesome) - this shows syntactic sugar for posting XHR with JavaScript - you might want to put this in a blog post (I'd like it) or even in a library (not sure about the namex
,ajax
orxhr
might be nicer :)). I don't see how it addresses returning the response from an AJAX call. (someone could still dovar res = x("url")
and not understand why it doesn't work ;)). On a side note - it would be cool if you returnedc
from the method so users can hook onerror
etc.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 5:56
21
2.ajax is meant to be async.. so NO var res=x('url')..
That's the entire point of this question and answers :)
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 17:28
2
why is there a 'c' parameter in the functions, if on the first line you're overwriting whatever value it had? am i missing something?
– Brian H.
Dec 21 '16 at 10:00
1
You can use parameters as a placeholder to avoid writing multiple times "var"
– cocco
Dec 21 '16 at 11:05
6
@cocco So you wrote misleading, unreadable code in a SO answer in order to save a few keystrokes? Please don't do that.
– stone
Oct 8 '17 at 6:20
|
show 1 more comment
11
While this answer is nice (And we all love XHR2 and posting file data and multipart data is totally awesome) - this shows syntactic sugar for posting XHR with JavaScript - you might want to put this in a blog post (I'd like it) or even in a library (not sure about the namex
,ajax
orxhr
might be nicer :)). I don't see how it addresses returning the response from an AJAX call. (someone could still dovar res = x("url")
and not understand why it doesn't work ;)). On a side note - it would be cool if you returnedc
from the method so users can hook onerror
etc.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 5:56
21
2.ajax is meant to be async.. so NO var res=x('url')..
That's the entire point of this question and answers :)
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 17:28
2
why is there a 'c' parameter in the functions, if on the first line you're overwriting whatever value it had? am i missing something?
– Brian H.
Dec 21 '16 at 10:00
1
You can use parameters as a placeholder to avoid writing multiple times "var"
– cocco
Dec 21 '16 at 11:05
6
@cocco So you wrote misleading, unreadable code in a SO answer in order to save a few keystrokes? Please don't do that.
– stone
Oct 8 '17 at 6:20
11
11
While this answer is nice (And we all love XHR2 and posting file data and multipart data is totally awesome) - this shows syntactic sugar for posting XHR with JavaScript - you might want to put this in a blog post (I'd like it) or even in a library (not sure about the name
x
, ajax
or xhr
might be nicer :)). I don't see how it addresses returning the response from an AJAX call. (someone could still do var res = x("url")
and not understand why it doesn't work ;)). On a side note - it would be cool if you returned c
from the method so users can hook on error
etc.– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 5:56
While this answer is nice (And we all love XHR2 and posting file data and multipart data is totally awesome) - this shows syntactic sugar for posting XHR with JavaScript - you might want to put this in a blog post (I'd like it) or even in a library (not sure about the name
x
, ajax
or xhr
might be nicer :)). I don't see how it addresses returning the response from an AJAX call. (someone could still do var res = x("url")
and not understand why it doesn't work ;)). On a side note - it would be cool if you returned c
from the method so users can hook on error
etc.– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 5:56
21
21
2.ajax is meant to be async.. so NO var res=x('url')..
That's the entire point of this question and answers :)– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 17:28
2.ajax is meant to be async.. so NO var res=x('url')..
That's the entire point of this question and answers :)– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Aug 23 '13 at 17:28
2
2
why is there a 'c' parameter in the functions, if on the first line you're overwriting whatever value it had? am i missing something?
– Brian H.
Dec 21 '16 at 10:00
why is there a 'c' parameter in the functions, if on the first line you're overwriting whatever value it had? am i missing something?
– Brian H.
Dec 21 '16 at 10:00
1
1
You can use parameters as a placeholder to avoid writing multiple times "var"
– cocco
Dec 21 '16 at 11:05
You can use parameters as a placeholder to avoid writing multiple times "var"
– cocco
Dec 21 '16 at 11:05
6
6
@cocco So you wrote misleading, unreadable code in a SO answer in order to save a few keystrokes? Please don't do that.
– stone
Oct 8 '17 at 6:20
@cocco So you wrote misleading, unreadable code in a SO answer in order to save a few keystrokes? Please don't do that.
– stone
Oct 8 '17 at 6:20
|
show 1 more comment
If you're using promises, this answer is for you.
This means AngularJS, jQuery (with deferred), native XHR's replacement (fetch), EmberJS, BackboneJS's save or any node library that returns promises.
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var data;
// or $.get(...).then, or request(...).then, or query(...).then
fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
data = response.json();
});
return data;
}
var result = foo(); // result is always undefined no matter what.
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery with callbacks for AJAX. I have an answer for native XHR. This answer is for generic usage of promises either on the frontend or backend.
The core issue
The JavaScript concurrency model in the browser and on the server with NodeJS/io.js is asynchronous and reactive.
Whenever you call a method that returns a promise, the then
handlers are always executed asynchronously - that is, after the code below them that is not in a .then
handler.
This means when you're returning data
the then
handler you've defined did not execute yet. This in turn means that the value you're returning has not been set to the correct value in time.
Here is a simple analogy for the issue:
function getFive(){
var data;
setTimeout(function(){ // set a timer for one second in the future
data = 5; // after a second, do this
}, 1000);
return data;
}
document.body.innerHTML = getFive(); // `undefined` here and not 5
The value of data
is undefined
since the data = 5
part has not executed yet. It will likely execute in a second but by that time it is irrelevant to the returned value.
Since the operation did not happen yet (AJAX, server call, IO, timer) you're returning the value before the request got the chance to tell your code what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed. Promises actively enable this by being temporal (time-sensitive) in nature.
Quick recap on promises
A Promise is a value over time. Promises have state, they start as pending with no value and can settle to:
fulfilled meaning that the computation completed successfully.
rejected meaning that the computation failed.
A promise can only change states once after which it will always stay at the same state forever. You can attach then
handlers to promises to extract their value and handle errors. then
handlers allow chaining of calls. Promises are created by using APIs that return them. For example, the more modern AJAX replacement fetch
or jQuery's $.get
return promises.
When we call .then
on a promise and return something from it - we get a promise for the processed value. If we return another promise we'll get amazing things, but let's hold our horses.
With promises
Let's see how we can solve the above issue with promises. First, let's demonstrate our understanding of promise states from above by using the Promise constructor for creating a delay function:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
Now, after we converted setTimeout to use promises, we can use then
to make it count:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
function getFive(){
// we're RETURNING the promise, remember, a promise is a wrapper over our value
return delay(100).then(function(){ // when the promise is ready
return 5; // return the value 5, promises are all about return values
})
}
// we _have_ to wrap it like this in the call site, we can't access the plain value
getFive().then(function(five){
document.body.innerHTML = five;
});
Basically, instead of returning a value which we can't do because of the concurrency model - we're returning a wrapper for a value that we can unwrap with then
. It's like a box you can open with then
.
Applying this
This stands the same for your original API call, you can:
function foo() {
// RETURN the promise
return fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
return response.json(); // process it inside the `then`
});
}
foo().then(function(response){
// access the value inside the `then`
})
So this works just as well. We've learned we can't return values from already asynchronous calls but we can use promises and chain them to perform processing. We now know how to return the response from an asynchronous call.
ES2015 (ES6)
ES6 introduces generators which are functions that can return in the middle and then resume the point they were at. This is typically useful for sequences, for example:
function* foo(){ // notice the star, this is ES6 so new browsers/node/io only
yield 1;
yield 2;
while(true) yield 3;
}
Is a function that returns an iterator over the sequence 1,2,3,3,3,3,....
which can be iterated. While this is interesting on its own and opens room for a lot of possibility there is one particular interesting case.
If the sequence we're producing is a sequence of actions rather than numbers - we can pause the function whenever an action is yielded and wait for it before we resume the function. So instead of a sequence of numbers, we need a sequence of future values - that is: promises.
This somewhat tricky but very powerful trick lets us write asynchronous code in a synchronous manner. There are several "runners" that do this for you, writing one is a short few lines of code but is beyond the scope of this answer. I'll be using Bluebird's Promise.coroutine
here, but there are other wrappers like co
or Q.async
.
var foo = coroutine(function*(){
var data = yield fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the yield
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
});
This method returns a promise itself, which we can consume from other coroutines. For example:
var main = coroutine(function*(){
var bar = yield foo(); // wait our earlier coroutine, it returns a promise
// server call done here, code below executes when done
var baz = yield fetch("/api/users/"+bar.userid); // depends on foo's result
console.log(baz); // runs after both requests done
});
main();
ES2016 (ES7)
In ES7, this is further standardized, there are several proposals right now but in all of them you can await
promise. This is just "sugar" (nicer syntax) for the ES6 proposal above by adding the async
and await
keywords. Making the above example:
async function foo(){
var data = await fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the await
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
}
It still returns a promise just the same :)
18
ES 2016 looks like the final solution to this problem once and for all.
– ShrekOverflow
May 12 '15 at 16:42
10
The absolutely final solution, for once and for all? What about the totally absolutely final solution, for once and for all plus one?
– Shmiddty
May 13 '15 at 6:11
3
@recurf first of all "where the hell" is hardly appropriate for this site (kids are using it too, for one). Second of all - it's a function parameter, I could have named it anywhere else and it would work just as fine.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jan 20 '17 at 0:08
@TDR byawait
ing with async/await or with athen
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jul 17 '18 at 18:45
add a comment |
If you're using promises, this answer is for you.
This means AngularJS, jQuery (with deferred), native XHR's replacement (fetch), EmberJS, BackboneJS's save or any node library that returns promises.
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var data;
// or $.get(...).then, or request(...).then, or query(...).then
fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
data = response.json();
});
return data;
}
var result = foo(); // result is always undefined no matter what.
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery with callbacks for AJAX. I have an answer for native XHR. This answer is for generic usage of promises either on the frontend or backend.
The core issue
The JavaScript concurrency model in the browser and on the server with NodeJS/io.js is asynchronous and reactive.
Whenever you call a method that returns a promise, the then
handlers are always executed asynchronously - that is, after the code below them that is not in a .then
handler.
This means when you're returning data
the then
handler you've defined did not execute yet. This in turn means that the value you're returning has not been set to the correct value in time.
Here is a simple analogy for the issue:
function getFive(){
var data;
setTimeout(function(){ // set a timer for one second in the future
data = 5; // after a second, do this
}, 1000);
return data;
}
document.body.innerHTML = getFive(); // `undefined` here and not 5
The value of data
is undefined
since the data = 5
part has not executed yet. It will likely execute in a second but by that time it is irrelevant to the returned value.
Since the operation did not happen yet (AJAX, server call, IO, timer) you're returning the value before the request got the chance to tell your code what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed. Promises actively enable this by being temporal (time-sensitive) in nature.
Quick recap on promises
A Promise is a value over time. Promises have state, they start as pending with no value and can settle to:
fulfilled meaning that the computation completed successfully.
rejected meaning that the computation failed.
A promise can only change states once after which it will always stay at the same state forever. You can attach then
handlers to promises to extract their value and handle errors. then
handlers allow chaining of calls. Promises are created by using APIs that return them. For example, the more modern AJAX replacement fetch
or jQuery's $.get
return promises.
When we call .then
on a promise and return something from it - we get a promise for the processed value. If we return another promise we'll get amazing things, but let's hold our horses.
With promises
Let's see how we can solve the above issue with promises. First, let's demonstrate our understanding of promise states from above by using the Promise constructor for creating a delay function:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
Now, after we converted setTimeout to use promises, we can use then
to make it count:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
function getFive(){
// we're RETURNING the promise, remember, a promise is a wrapper over our value
return delay(100).then(function(){ // when the promise is ready
return 5; // return the value 5, promises are all about return values
})
}
// we _have_ to wrap it like this in the call site, we can't access the plain value
getFive().then(function(five){
document.body.innerHTML = five;
});
Basically, instead of returning a value which we can't do because of the concurrency model - we're returning a wrapper for a value that we can unwrap with then
. It's like a box you can open with then
.
Applying this
This stands the same for your original API call, you can:
function foo() {
// RETURN the promise
return fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
return response.json(); // process it inside the `then`
});
}
foo().then(function(response){
// access the value inside the `then`
})
So this works just as well. We've learned we can't return values from already asynchronous calls but we can use promises and chain them to perform processing. We now know how to return the response from an asynchronous call.
ES2015 (ES6)
ES6 introduces generators which are functions that can return in the middle and then resume the point they were at. This is typically useful for sequences, for example:
function* foo(){ // notice the star, this is ES6 so new browsers/node/io only
yield 1;
yield 2;
while(true) yield 3;
}
Is a function that returns an iterator over the sequence 1,2,3,3,3,3,....
which can be iterated. While this is interesting on its own and opens room for a lot of possibility there is one particular interesting case.
If the sequence we're producing is a sequence of actions rather than numbers - we can pause the function whenever an action is yielded and wait for it before we resume the function. So instead of a sequence of numbers, we need a sequence of future values - that is: promises.
This somewhat tricky but very powerful trick lets us write asynchronous code in a synchronous manner. There are several "runners" that do this for you, writing one is a short few lines of code but is beyond the scope of this answer. I'll be using Bluebird's Promise.coroutine
here, but there are other wrappers like co
or Q.async
.
var foo = coroutine(function*(){
var data = yield fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the yield
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
});
This method returns a promise itself, which we can consume from other coroutines. For example:
var main = coroutine(function*(){
var bar = yield foo(); // wait our earlier coroutine, it returns a promise
// server call done here, code below executes when done
var baz = yield fetch("/api/users/"+bar.userid); // depends on foo's result
console.log(baz); // runs after both requests done
});
main();
ES2016 (ES7)
In ES7, this is further standardized, there are several proposals right now but in all of them you can await
promise. This is just "sugar" (nicer syntax) for the ES6 proposal above by adding the async
and await
keywords. Making the above example:
async function foo(){
var data = await fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the await
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
}
It still returns a promise just the same :)
18
ES 2016 looks like the final solution to this problem once and for all.
– ShrekOverflow
May 12 '15 at 16:42
10
The absolutely final solution, for once and for all? What about the totally absolutely final solution, for once and for all plus one?
– Shmiddty
May 13 '15 at 6:11
3
@recurf first of all "where the hell" is hardly appropriate for this site (kids are using it too, for one). Second of all - it's a function parameter, I could have named it anywhere else and it would work just as fine.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jan 20 '17 at 0:08
@TDR byawait
ing with async/await or with athen
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jul 17 '18 at 18:45
add a comment |
If you're using promises, this answer is for you.
This means AngularJS, jQuery (with deferred), native XHR's replacement (fetch), EmberJS, BackboneJS's save or any node library that returns promises.
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var data;
// or $.get(...).then, or request(...).then, or query(...).then
fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
data = response.json();
});
return data;
}
var result = foo(); // result is always undefined no matter what.
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery with callbacks for AJAX. I have an answer for native XHR. This answer is for generic usage of promises either on the frontend or backend.
The core issue
The JavaScript concurrency model in the browser and on the server with NodeJS/io.js is asynchronous and reactive.
Whenever you call a method that returns a promise, the then
handlers are always executed asynchronously - that is, after the code below them that is not in a .then
handler.
This means when you're returning data
the then
handler you've defined did not execute yet. This in turn means that the value you're returning has not been set to the correct value in time.
Here is a simple analogy for the issue:
function getFive(){
var data;
setTimeout(function(){ // set a timer for one second in the future
data = 5; // after a second, do this
}, 1000);
return data;
}
document.body.innerHTML = getFive(); // `undefined` here and not 5
The value of data
is undefined
since the data = 5
part has not executed yet. It will likely execute in a second but by that time it is irrelevant to the returned value.
Since the operation did not happen yet (AJAX, server call, IO, timer) you're returning the value before the request got the chance to tell your code what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed. Promises actively enable this by being temporal (time-sensitive) in nature.
Quick recap on promises
A Promise is a value over time. Promises have state, they start as pending with no value and can settle to:
fulfilled meaning that the computation completed successfully.
rejected meaning that the computation failed.
A promise can only change states once after which it will always stay at the same state forever. You can attach then
handlers to promises to extract their value and handle errors. then
handlers allow chaining of calls. Promises are created by using APIs that return them. For example, the more modern AJAX replacement fetch
or jQuery's $.get
return promises.
When we call .then
on a promise and return something from it - we get a promise for the processed value. If we return another promise we'll get amazing things, but let's hold our horses.
With promises
Let's see how we can solve the above issue with promises. First, let's demonstrate our understanding of promise states from above by using the Promise constructor for creating a delay function:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
Now, after we converted setTimeout to use promises, we can use then
to make it count:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
function getFive(){
// we're RETURNING the promise, remember, a promise is a wrapper over our value
return delay(100).then(function(){ // when the promise is ready
return 5; // return the value 5, promises are all about return values
})
}
// we _have_ to wrap it like this in the call site, we can't access the plain value
getFive().then(function(five){
document.body.innerHTML = five;
});
Basically, instead of returning a value which we can't do because of the concurrency model - we're returning a wrapper for a value that we can unwrap with then
. It's like a box you can open with then
.
Applying this
This stands the same for your original API call, you can:
function foo() {
// RETURN the promise
return fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
return response.json(); // process it inside the `then`
});
}
foo().then(function(response){
// access the value inside the `then`
})
So this works just as well. We've learned we can't return values from already asynchronous calls but we can use promises and chain them to perform processing. We now know how to return the response from an asynchronous call.
ES2015 (ES6)
ES6 introduces generators which are functions that can return in the middle and then resume the point they were at. This is typically useful for sequences, for example:
function* foo(){ // notice the star, this is ES6 so new browsers/node/io only
yield 1;
yield 2;
while(true) yield 3;
}
Is a function that returns an iterator over the sequence 1,2,3,3,3,3,....
which can be iterated. While this is interesting on its own and opens room for a lot of possibility there is one particular interesting case.
If the sequence we're producing is a sequence of actions rather than numbers - we can pause the function whenever an action is yielded and wait for it before we resume the function. So instead of a sequence of numbers, we need a sequence of future values - that is: promises.
This somewhat tricky but very powerful trick lets us write asynchronous code in a synchronous manner. There are several "runners" that do this for you, writing one is a short few lines of code but is beyond the scope of this answer. I'll be using Bluebird's Promise.coroutine
here, but there are other wrappers like co
or Q.async
.
var foo = coroutine(function*(){
var data = yield fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the yield
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
});
This method returns a promise itself, which we can consume from other coroutines. For example:
var main = coroutine(function*(){
var bar = yield foo(); // wait our earlier coroutine, it returns a promise
// server call done here, code below executes when done
var baz = yield fetch("/api/users/"+bar.userid); // depends on foo's result
console.log(baz); // runs after both requests done
});
main();
ES2016 (ES7)
In ES7, this is further standardized, there are several proposals right now but in all of them you can await
promise. This is just "sugar" (nicer syntax) for the ES6 proposal above by adding the async
and await
keywords. Making the above example:
async function foo(){
var data = await fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the await
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
}
It still returns a promise just the same :)
If you're using promises, this answer is for you.
This means AngularJS, jQuery (with deferred), native XHR's replacement (fetch), EmberJS, BackboneJS's save or any node library that returns promises.
Your code should be something along the lines of this:
function foo() {
var data;
// or $.get(...).then, or request(...).then, or query(...).then
fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
data = response.json();
});
return data;
}
var result = foo(); // result is always undefined no matter what.
Felix Kling did a fine job writing an answer for people using jQuery with callbacks for AJAX. I have an answer for native XHR. This answer is for generic usage of promises either on the frontend or backend.
The core issue
The JavaScript concurrency model in the browser and on the server with NodeJS/io.js is asynchronous and reactive.
Whenever you call a method that returns a promise, the then
handlers are always executed asynchronously - that is, after the code below them that is not in a .then
handler.
This means when you're returning data
the then
handler you've defined did not execute yet. This in turn means that the value you're returning has not been set to the correct value in time.
Here is a simple analogy for the issue:
function getFive(){
var data;
setTimeout(function(){ // set a timer for one second in the future
data = 5; // after a second, do this
}, 1000);
return data;
}
document.body.innerHTML = getFive(); // `undefined` here and not 5
The value of data
is undefined
since the data = 5
part has not executed yet. It will likely execute in a second but by that time it is irrelevant to the returned value.
Since the operation did not happen yet (AJAX, server call, IO, timer) you're returning the value before the request got the chance to tell your code what that value is.
One possible solution to this problem is to code re-actively , telling your program what to do when the calculation completed. Promises actively enable this by being temporal (time-sensitive) in nature.
Quick recap on promises
A Promise is a value over time. Promises have state, they start as pending with no value and can settle to:
fulfilled meaning that the computation completed successfully.
rejected meaning that the computation failed.
A promise can only change states once after which it will always stay at the same state forever. You can attach then
handlers to promises to extract their value and handle errors. then
handlers allow chaining of calls. Promises are created by using APIs that return them. For example, the more modern AJAX replacement fetch
or jQuery's $.get
return promises.
When we call .then
on a promise and return something from it - we get a promise for the processed value. If we return another promise we'll get amazing things, but let's hold our horses.
With promises
Let's see how we can solve the above issue with promises. First, let's demonstrate our understanding of promise states from above by using the Promise constructor for creating a delay function:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
Now, after we converted setTimeout to use promises, we can use then
to make it count:
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
function getFive(){
// we're RETURNING the promise, remember, a promise is a wrapper over our value
return delay(100).then(function(){ // when the promise is ready
return 5; // return the value 5, promises are all about return values
})
}
// we _have_ to wrap it like this in the call site, we can't access the plain value
getFive().then(function(five){
document.body.innerHTML = five;
});
Basically, instead of returning a value which we can't do because of the concurrency model - we're returning a wrapper for a value that we can unwrap with then
. It's like a box you can open with then
.
Applying this
This stands the same for your original API call, you can:
function foo() {
// RETURN the promise
return fetch("/echo/json").then(function(response){
return response.json(); // process it inside the `then`
});
}
foo().then(function(response){
// access the value inside the `then`
})
So this works just as well. We've learned we can't return values from already asynchronous calls but we can use promises and chain them to perform processing. We now know how to return the response from an asynchronous call.
ES2015 (ES6)
ES6 introduces generators which are functions that can return in the middle and then resume the point they were at. This is typically useful for sequences, for example:
function* foo(){ // notice the star, this is ES6 so new browsers/node/io only
yield 1;
yield 2;
while(true) yield 3;
}
Is a function that returns an iterator over the sequence 1,2,3,3,3,3,....
which can be iterated. While this is interesting on its own and opens room for a lot of possibility there is one particular interesting case.
If the sequence we're producing is a sequence of actions rather than numbers - we can pause the function whenever an action is yielded and wait for it before we resume the function. So instead of a sequence of numbers, we need a sequence of future values - that is: promises.
This somewhat tricky but very powerful trick lets us write asynchronous code in a synchronous manner. There are several "runners" that do this for you, writing one is a short few lines of code but is beyond the scope of this answer. I'll be using Bluebird's Promise.coroutine
here, but there are other wrappers like co
or Q.async
.
var foo = coroutine(function*(){
var data = yield fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the yield
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
});
This method returns a promise itself, which we can consume from other coroutines. For example:
var main = coroutine(function*(){
var bar = yield foo(); // wait our earlier coroutine, it returns a promise
// server call done here, code below executes when done
var baz = yield fetch("/api/users/"+bar.userid); // depends on foo's result
console.log(baz); // runs after both requests done
});
main();
ES2016 (ES7)
In ES7, this is further standardized, there are several proposals right now but in all of them you can await
promise. This is just "sugar" (nicer syntax) for the ES6 proposal above by adding the async
and await
keywords. Making the above example:
async function foo(){
var data = await fetch("/echo/json"); // notice the await
// code here only executes _after_ the request is done
return data.json(); // data is defined
}
It still returns a promise just the same :)
function getFive(){
var data;
setTimeout(function(){ // set a timer for one second in the future
data = 5; // after a second, do this
}, 1000);
return data;
}
document.body.innerHTML = getFive(); // `undefined` here and not 5
function getFive(){
var data;
setTimeout(function(){ // set a timer for one second in the future
data = 5; // after a second, do this
}, 1000);
return data;
}
document.body.innerHTML = getFive(); // `undefined` here and not 5
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
function getFive(){
// we're RETURNING the promise, remember, a promise is a wrapper over our value
return delay(100).then(function(){ // when the promise is ready
return 5; // return the value 5, promises are all about return values
})
}
// we _have_ to wrap it like this in the call site, we can't access the plain value
getFive().then(function(five){
document.body.innerHTML = five;
});
function delay(ms){ // takes amount of milliseconds
// returns a new promise
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
setTimeout(function(){ // when the time is up
resolve(); // change the promise to the fulfilled state
}, ms);
});
}
function getFive(){
// we're RETURNING the promise, remember, a promise is a wrapper over our value
return delay(100).then(function(){ // when the promise is ready
return 5; // return the value 5, promises are all about return values
})
}
// we _have_ to wrap it like this in the call site, we can't access the plain value
getFive().then(function(five){
document.body.innerHTML = five;
});
edited May 23 '17 at 12:34
Community♦
11
11
answered May 12 '15 at 2:22
Benjamin GruenbaumBenjamin Gruenbaum
187k63400436
187k63400436
18
ES 2016 looks like the final solution to this problem once and for all.
– ShrekOverflow
May 12 '15 at 16:42
10
The absolutely final solution, for once and for all? What about the totally absolutely final solution, for once and for all plus one?
– Shmiddty
May 13 '15 at 6:11
3
@recurf first of all "where the hell" is hardly appropriate for this site (kids are using it too, for one). Second of all - it's a function parameter, I could have named it anywhere else and it would work just as fine.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jan 20 '17 at 0:08
@TDR byawait
ing with async/await or with athen
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jul 17 '18 at 18:45
add a comment |
18
ES 2016 looks like the final solution to this problem once and for all.
– ShrekOverflow
May 12 '15 at 16:42
10
The absolutely final solution, for once and for all? What about the totally absolutely final solution, for once and for all plus one?
– Shmiddty
May 13 '15 at 6:11
3
@recurf first of all "where the hell" is hardly appropriate for this site (kids are using it too, for one). Second of all - it's a function parameter, I could have named it anywhere else and it would work just as fine.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jan 20 '17 at 0:08
@TDR byawait
ing with async/await or with athen
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jul 17 '18 at 18:45
18
18
ES 2016 looks like the final solution to this problem once and for all.
– ShrekOverflow
May 12 '15 at 16:42
ES 2016 looks like the final solution to this problem once and for all.
– ShrekOverflow
May 12 '15 at 16:42
10
10
The absolutely final solution, for once and for all? What about the totally absolutely final solution, for once and for all plus one?
– Shmiddty
May 13 '15 at 6:11
The absolutely final solution, for once and for all? What about the totally absolutely final solution, for once and for all plus one?
– Shmiddty
May 13 '15 at 6:11
3
3
@recurf first of all "where the hell" is hardly appropriate for this site (kids are using it too, for one). Second of all - it's a function parameter, I could have named it anywhere else and it would work just as fine.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jan 20 '17 at 0:08
@recurf first of all "where the hell" is hardly appropriate for this site (kids are using it too, for one). Second of all - it's a function parameter, I could have named it anywhere else and it would work just as fine.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jan 20 '17 at 0:08
@TDR by
await
ing with async/await or with a then
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jul 17 '18 at 18:45
@TDR by
await
ing with async/await or with a then
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jul 17 '18 at 18:45
add a comment |
You are using Ajax incorrectly. The idea is not to have it return anything, but instead hand off the data to something called a callback function, which handles the data.
That is:
function handleData( responseData ) {
// Do what you want with the data
console.log(responseData);
}
$.ajax({
url: "hi.php",
...
success: function ( data, status, XHR ) {
handleData(data);
}
});
Returning anything in the submit handler will not do anything. You must instead either hand off the data, or do what you want with it directly inside the success function.
9
This answer is completely semantic... your success method is just a callback within a callback. You could just havesuccess: handleData
and it would work.
– Jacques
Jan 4 '16 at 15:49
3
And what if you want to return the "responseData" outside of "handleData" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "handleData" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
@Jacques & @pesho hristov You missed this point. Submit handler is not thesuccess
method, it's the surrounding scope of$.ajax
.
– travnik
May 28 '18 at 12:37
@travnik I didn't miss that. If you took the contents of handleData and put it in the success method it would act exactly the same...
– Jacques
Jun 13 '18 at 1:21
add a comment |
You are using Ajax incorrectly. The idea is not to have it return anything, but instead hand off the data to something called a callback function, which handles the data.
That is:
function handleData( responseData ) {
// Do what you want with the data
console.log(responseData);
}
$.ajax({
url: "hi.php",
...
success: function ( data, status, XHR ) {
handleData(data);
}
});
Returning anything in the submit handler will not do anything. You must instead either hand off the data, or do what you want with it directly inside the success function.
9
This answer is completely semantic... your success method is just a callback within a callback. You could just havesuccess: handleData
and it would work.
– Jacques
Jan 4 '16 at 15:49
3
And what if you want to return the "responseData" outside of "handleData" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "handleData" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
@Jacques & @pesho hristov You missed this point. Submit handler is not thesuccess
method, it's the surrounding scope of$.ajax
.
– travnik
May 28 '18 at 12:37
@travnik I didn't miss that. If you took the contents of handleData and put it in the success method it would act exactly the same...
– Jacques
Jun 13 '18 at 1:21
add a comment |
You are using Ajax incorrectly. The idea is not to have it return anything, but instead hand off the data to something called a callback function, which handles the data.
That is:
function handleData( responseData ) {
// Do what you want with the data
console.log(responseData);
}
$.ajax({
url: "hi.php",
...
success: function ( data, status, XHR ) {
handleData(data);
}
});
Returning anything in the submit handler will not do anything. You must instead either hand off the data, or do what you want with it directly inside the success function.
You are using Ajax incorrectly. The idea is not to have it return anything, but instead hand off the data to something called a callback function, which handles the data.
That is:
function handleData( responseData ) {
// Do what you want with the data
console.log(responseData);
}
$.ajax({
url: "hi.php",
...
success: function ( data, status, XHR ) {
handleData(data);
}
});
Returning anything in the submit handler will not do anything. You must instead either hand off the data, or do what you want with it directly inside the success function.
edited Nov 21 '15 at 14:07
Peter Mortensen
13.5k1984111
13.5k1984111
answered May 23 '14 at 2:05
NicNic
2,0281812
2,0281812
9
This answer is completely semantic... your success method is just a callback within a callback. You could just havesuccess: handleData
and it would work.
– Jacques
Jan 4 '16 at 15:49
3
And what if you want to return the "responseData" outside of "handleData" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "handleData" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
@Jacques & @pesho hristov You missed this point. Submit handler is not thesuccess
method, it's the surrounding scope of$.ajax
.
– travnik
May 28 '18 at 12:37
@travnik I didn't miss that. If you took the contents of handleData and put it in the success method it would act exactly the same...
– Jacques
Jun 13 '18 at 1:21
add a comment |
9
This answer is completely semantic... your success method is just a callback within a callback. You could just havesuccess: handleData
and it would work.
– Jacques
Jan 4 '16 at 15:49
3
And what if you want to return the "responseData" outside of "handleData" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "handleData" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
@Jacques & @pesho hristov You missed this point. Submit handler is not thesuccess
method, it's the surrounding scope of$.ajax
.
– travnik
May 28 '18 at 12:37
@travnik I didn't miss that. If you took the contents of handleData and put it in the success method it would act exactly the same...
– Jacques
Jun 13 '18 at 1:21
9
9
This answer is completely semantic... your success method is just a callback within a callback. You could just have
success: handleData
and it would work.– Jacques
Jan 4 '16 at 15:49
This answer is completely semantic... your success method is just a callback within a callback. You could just have
success: handleData
and it would work.– Jacques
Jan 4 '16 at 15:49
3
3
And what if you want to return the "responseData" outside of "handleData" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "handleData" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
And what if you want to return the "responseData" outside of "handleData" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "handleData" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
@Jacques & @pesho hristov You missed this point. Submit handler is not the
success
method, it's the surrounding scope of $.ajax
.– travnik
May 28 '18 at 12:37
@Jacques & @pesho hristov You missed this point. Submit handler is not the
success
method, it's the surrounding scope of $.ajax
.– travnik
May 28 '18 at 12:37
@travnik I didn't miss that. If you took the contents of handleData and put it in the success method it would act exactly the same...
– Jacques
Jun 13 '18 at 1:21
@travnik I didn't miss that. If you took the contents of handleData and put it in the success method it would act exactly the same...
– Jacques
Jun 13 '18 at 1:21
add a comment |
The simplest solution is create a JavaScript function and call it for the Ajax success
callback.
function callServerAsync(){
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
successCallback(response);
}
});
}
function successCallback(responseObj){
// Do something like read the response and show data
alert(JSON.stringify(responseObj)); // Only applicable to JSON response
}
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
return callback(null, response);
}
});
}
var result = foo(function(err, result){
if (!err)
console.log(result);
});
2
I don't know who voted it negative. But this is a work around which has worked in fact i used this approach to create a whole application. The jquery.ajax don't return data so its better to use the above approach. If it's wrong then please explain and suggest better way to do it.
– Hemant Bavle
Mar 28 '14 at 18:12
11
Sorry, I forgot to leave a comment (I usually do!). I downvoted it. Downvotes don't indicate factual correctness or lack of, they indicate usefulness in the context or lack of. I don't find your answer useful given Felix's which already explains this only in much more detail. On a side note, why would you stringify the response if it's JSON?
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Apr 10 '14 at 9:18
5
ok.. @Benjamin i used stringify, to convert a JSON Object to string. And thanks for clarifying your point. Will keep in mind to post more elaborate answers.
– Hemant Bavle
Apr 10 '14 at 10:27
And what if you want to return the "responseObj" outside of "successCallback" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "successCallback" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
add a comment |
The simplest solution is create a JavaScript function and call it for the Ajax success
callback.
function callServerAsync(){
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
successCallback(response);
}
});
}
function successCallback(responseObj){
// Do something like read the response and show data
alert(JSON.stringify(responseObj)); // Only applicable to JSON response
}
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
return callback(null, response);
}
});
}
var result = foo(function(err, result){
if (!err)
console.log(result);
});
2
I don't know who voted it negative. But this is a work around which has worked in fact i used this approach to create a whole application. The jquery.ajax don't return data so its better to use the above approach. If it's wrong then please explain and suggest better way to do it.
– Hemant Bavle
Mar 28 '14 at 18:12
11
Sorry, I forgot to leave a comment (I usually do!). I downvoted it. Downvotes don't indicate factual correctness or lack of, they indicate usefulness in the context or lack of. I don't find your answer useful given Felix's which already explains this only in much more detail. On a side note, why would you stringify the response if it's JSON?
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Apr 10 '14 at 9:18
5
ok.. @Benjamin i used stringify, to convert a JSON Object to string. And thanks for clarifying your point. Will keep in mind to post more elaborate answers.
– Hemant Bavle
Apr 10 '14 at 10:27
And what if you want to return the "responseObj" outside of "successCallback" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "successCallback" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
add a comment |
The simplest solution is create a JavaScript function and call it for the Ajax success
callback.
function callServerAsync(){
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
successCallback(response);
}
});
}
function successCallback(responseObj){
// Do something like read the response and show data
alert(JSON.stringify(responseObj)); // Only applicable to JSON response
}
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
return callback(null, response);
}
});
}
var result = foo(function(err, result){
if (!err)
console.log(result);
});
The simplest solution is create a JavaScript function and call it for the Ajax success
callback.
function callServerAsync(){
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
successCallback(response);
}
});
}
function successCallback(responseObj){
// Do something like read the response and show data
alert(JSON.stringify(responseObj)); // Only applicable to JSON response
}
function foo(callback) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
return callback(null, response);
}
});
}
var result = foo(function(err, result){
if (!err)
console.log(result);
});
edited Jan 15 '17 at 6:17
clearlight
8,64893858
8,64893858
answered Feb 18 '14 at 18:58
Hemant BavleHemant Bavle
2,39611823
2,39611823
2
I don't know who voted it negative. But this is a work around which has worked in fact i used this approach to create a whole application. The jquery.ajax don't return data so its better to use the above approach. If it's wrong then please explain and suggest better way to do it.
– Hemant Bavle
Mar 28 '14 at 18:12
11
Sorry, I forgot to leave a comment (I usually do!). I downvoted it. Downvotes don't indicate factual correctness or lack of, they indicate usefulness in the context or lack of. I don't find your answer useful given Felix's which already explains this only in much more detail. On a side note, why would you stringify the response if it's JSON?
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Apr 10 '14 at 9:18
5
ok.. @Benjamin i used stringify, to convert a JSON Object to string. And thanks for clarifying your point. Will keep in mind to post more elaborate answers.
– Hemant Bavle
Apr 10 '14 at 10:27
And what if you want to return the "responseObj" outside of "successCallback" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "successCallback" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
add a comment |
2
I don't know who voted it negative. But this is a work around which has worked in fact i used this approach to create a whole application. The jquery.ajax don't return data so its better to use the above approach. If it's wrong then please explain and suggest better way to do it.
– Hemant Bavle
Mar 28 '14 at 18:12
11
Sorry, I forgot to leave a comment (I usually do!). I downvoted it. Downvotes don't indicate factual correctness or lack of, they indicate usefulness in the context or lack of. I don't find your answer useful given Felix's which already explains this only in much more detail. On a side note, why would you stringify the response if it's JSON?
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Apr 10 '14 at 9:18
5
ok.. @Benjamin i used stringify, to convert a JSON Object to string. And thanks for clarifying your point. Will keep in mind to post more elaborate answers.
– Hemant Bavle
Apr 10 '14 at 10:27
And what if you want to return the "responseObj" outside of "successCallback" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "successCallback" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
2
2
I don't know who voted it negative. But this is a work around which has worked in fact i used this approach to create a whole application. The jquery.ajax don't return data so its better to use the above approach. If it's wrong then please explain and suggest better way to do it.
– Hemant Bavle
Mar 28 '14 at 18:12
I don't know who voted it negative. But this is a work around which has worked in fact i used this approach to create a whole application. The jquery.ajax don't return data so its better to use the above approach. If it's wrong then please explain and suggest better way to do it.
– Hemant Bavle
Mar 28 '14 at 18:12
11
11
Sorry, I forgot to leave a comment (I usually do!). I downvoted it. Downvotes don't indicate factual correctness or lack of, they indicate usefulness in the context or lack of. I don't find your answer useful given Felix's which already explains this only in much more detail. On a side note, why would you stringify the response if it's JSON?
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Apr 10 '14 at 9:18
Sorry, I forgot to leave a comment (I usually do!). I downvoted it. Downvotes don't indicate factual correctness or lack of, they indicate usefulness in the context or lack of. I don't find your answer useful given Felix's which already explains this only in much more detail. On a side note, why would you stringify the response if it's JSON?
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Apr 10 '14 at 9:18
5
5
ok.. @Benjamin i used stringify, to convert a JSON Object to string. And thanks for clarifying your point. Will keep in mind to post more elaborate answers.
– Hemant Bavle
Apr 10 '14 at 10:27
ok.. @Benjamin i used stringify, to convert a JSON Object to string. And thanks for clarifying your point. Will keep in mind to post more elaborate answers.
– Hemant Bavle
Apr 10 '14 at 10:27
And what if you want to return the "responseObj" outside of "successCallback" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "successCallback" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
And what if you want to return the "responseObj" outside of "successCallback" ... :) ... how will you do it ... ? ... cause a simple return will return it to the "success" callback of the ajax ... and not outside of "successCallback" ...
– pesho hristov
Feb 19 '16 at 16:02
add a comment |
I will answer with a horrible-looking, hand-drawn comic. The second image is the reason why result
is undefined
in your code example.
24
A picture is worth a thousand words, Person A - Ask's person B details to fix his car, in turn Person B - Makes Ajax Call and waits for response from server for car fixing details, when response is received, Ajax Success function calls the Person B function and passes the response as argument to it, Person A receives the answer.
– stom
Oct 31 '16 at 17:48
5
Would be great if you added lines of code with each image to illustrate the concepts.
– Hassan Baig
Feb 5 '18 at 0:32
6
The best explanation I've ever come across
– anonymous
Mar 31 '18 at 15:52
1
Best Explanation
– Vijay S
Aug 23 '18 at 9:42
add a comment |
I will answer with a horrible-looking, hand-drawn comic. The second image is the reason why result
is undefined
in your code example.
24
A picture is worth a thousand words, Person A - Ask's person B details to fix his car, in turn Person B - Makes Ajax Call and waits for response from server for car fixing details, when response is received, Ajax Success function calls the Person B function and passes the response as argument to it, Person A receives the answer.
– stom
Oct 31 '16 at 17:48
5
Would be great if you added lines of code with each image to illustrate the concepts.
– Hassan Baig
Feb 5 '18 at 0:32
6
The best explanation I've ever come across
– anonymous
Mar 31 '18 at 15:52
1
Best Explanation
– Vijay S
Aug 23 '18 at 9:42
add a comment |
I will answer with a horrible-looking, hand-drawn comic. The second image is the reason why result
is undefined
in your code example.
I will answer with a horrible-looking, hand-drawn comic. The second image is the reason why result
is undefined
in your code example.
edited Aug 11 '16 at 17:12
answered Aug 11 '16 at 14:17
Johannes FahrenkrugJohannes Fahrenkrug
31.2k1595140
31.2k1595140
24
A picture is worth a thousand words, Person A - Ask's person B details to fix his car, in turn Person B - Makes Ajax Call and waits for response from server for car fixing details, when response is received, Ajax Success function calls the Person B function and passes the response as argument to it, Person A receives the answer.
– stom
Oct 31 '16 at 17:48
5
Would be great if you added lines of code with each image to illustrate the concepts.
– Hassan Baig
Feb 5 '18 at 0:32
6
The best explanation I've ever come across
– anonymous
Mar 31 '18 at 15:52
1
Best Explanation
– Vijay S
Aug 23 '18 at 9:42
add a comment |
24
A picture is worth a thousand words, Person A - Ask's person B details to fix his car, in turn Person B - Makes Ajax Call and waits for response from server for car fixing details, when response is received, Ajax Success function calls the Person B function and passes the response as argument to it, Person A receives the answer.
– stom
Oct 31 '16 at 17:48
5
Would be great if you added lines of code with each image to illustrate the concepts.
– Hassan Baig
Feb 5 '18 at 0:32
6
The best explanation I've ever come across
– anonymous
Mar 31 '18 at 15:52
1
Best Explanation
– Vijay S
Aug 23 '18 at 9:42
24
24
A picture is worth a thousand words, Person A - Ask's person B details to fix his car, in turn Person B - Makes Ajax Call and waits for response from server for car fixing details, when response is received, Ajax Success function calls the Person B function and passes the response as argument to it, Person A receives the answer.
– stom
Oct 31 '16 at 17:48
A picture is worth a thousand words, Person A - Ask's person B details to fix his car, in turn Person B - Makes Ajax Call and waits for response from server for car fixing details, when response is received, Ajax Success function calls the Person B function and passes the response as argument to it, Person A receives the answer.
– stom
Oct 31 '16 at 17:48
5
5
Would be great if you added lines of code with each image to illustrate the concepts.
– Hassan Baig
Feb 5 '18 at 0:32
Would be great if you added lines of code with each image to illustrate the concepts.
– Hassan Baig
Feb 5 '18 at 0:32
6
6
The best explanation I've ever come across
– anonymous
Mar 31 '18 at 15:52
The best explanation I've ever come across
– anonymous
Mar 31 '18 at 15:52
1
1
Best Explanation
– Vijay S
Aug 23 '18 at 9:42
Best Explanation
– Vijay S
Aug 23 '18 at 9:42
add a comment |
Angular1
For people who are using AngularJS, can handle this situation using Promises
.
Here it says,
Promises can be used to unnest asynchronous functions and allows one to chain multiple functions together.
You can find a nice explanation here also.
Example found in docs mentioned below.
promiseB = promiseA.then(
function onSuccess(result) {
return result + 1;
}
,function onError(err) {
//Handle error
}
);
// promiseB will be resolved immediately after promiseA is resolved
// and its value will be the result of promiseA incremented by 1.
Angular2 and Later
In Angular2
with look at the following example, but its recommended to use Observables
with Angular2
.
search(term: string) {
return this.http
.get(`https://api.spotify.com/v1/search?q=${term}&type=artist`)
.map((response) => response.json())
.toPromise();
}
You can consume that in this way,
search() {
this.searchService.search(this.searchField.value)
.then((result) => {
this.result = result.artists.items;
})
.catch((error) => console.error(error));
}
See the original post here. But Typescript does not support native es6 Promises, if you want to use it, you might need plugin for that.
Additionally here is the promises spec define here.
13
This does not explain how promises would solve this issue at all though.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Nov 4 '14 at 2:29
4
It doesn't work. promiseB will get 'undefined'
– An Overflowed Stack
Nov 21 '14 at 15:35
3
jQuery and fetch methods both return promises as well. I would suggest revising your answer. Though jQuery's isn't quite the same (then is there, but catch isn't).
– Tracker1
Feb 19 '15 at 19:24
add a comment |
Angular1
For people who are using AngularJS, can handle this situation using Promises
.
Here it says,
Promises can be used to unnest asynchronous functions and allows one to chain multiple functions together.
You can find a nice explanation here also.
Example found in docs mentioned below.
promiseB = promiseA.then(
function onSuccess(result) {
return result + 1;
}
,function onError(err) {
//Handle error
}
);
// promiseB will be resolved immediately after promiseA is resolved
// and its value will be the result of promiseA incremented by 1.
Angular2 and Later
In Angular2
with look at the following example, but its recommended to use Observables
with Angular2
.
search(term: string) {
return this.http
.get(`https://api.spotify.com/v1/search?q=${term}&type=artist`)
.map((response) => response.json())
.toPromise();
}
You can consume that in this way,
search() {
this.searchService.search(this.searchField.value)
.then((result) => {
this.result = result.artists.items;
})
.catch((error) => console.error(error));
}
See the original post here. But Typescript does not support native es6 Promises, if you want to use it, you might need plugin for that.
Additionally here is the promises spec define here.
13
This does not explain how promises would solve this issue at all though.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Nov 4 '14 at 2:29
4
It doesn't work. promiseB will get 'undefined'
– An Overflowed Stack
Nov 21 '14 at 15:35
3
jQuery and fetch methods both return promises as well. I would suggest revising your answer. Though jQuery's isn't quite the same (then is there, but catch isn't).
– Tracker1
Feb 19 '15 at 19:24
add a comment |
Angular1
For people who are using AngularJS, can handle this situation using Promises
.
Here it says,
Promises can be used to unnest asynchronous functions and allows one to chain multiple functions together.
You can find a nice explanation here also.
Example found in docs mentioned below.
promiseB = promiseA.then(
function onSuccess(result) {
return result + 1;
}
,function onError(err) {
//Handle error
}
);
// promiseB will be resolved immediately after promiseA is resolved
// and its value will be the result of promiseA incremented by 1.
Angular2 and Later
In Angular2
with look at the following example, but its recommended to use Observables
with Angular2
.
search(term: string) {
return this.http
.get(`https://api.spotify.com/v1/search?q=${term}&type=artist`)
.map((response) => response.json())
.toPromise();
}
You can consume that in this way,
search() {
this.searchService.search(this.searchField.value)
.then((result) => {
this.result = result.artists.items;
})
.catch((error) => console.error(error));
}
See the original post here. But Typescript does not support native es6 Promises, if you want to use it, you might need plugin for that.
Additionally here is the promises spec define here.
Angular1
For people who are using AngularJS, can handle this situation using Promises
.
Here it says,
Promises can be used to unnest asynchronous functions and allows one to chain multiple functions together.
You can find a nice explanation here also.
Example found in docs mentioned below.
promiseB = promiseA.then(
function onSuccess(result) {
return result + 1;
}
,function onError(err) {
//Handle error
}
);
// promiseB will be resolved immediately after promiseA is resolved
// and its value will be the result of promiseA incremented by 1.
Angular2 and Later
In Angular2
with look at the following example, but its recommended to use Observables
with Angular2
.
search(term: string) {
return this.http
.get(`https://api.spotify.com/v1/search?q=${term}&type=artist`)
.map((response) => response.json())
.toPromise();
}
You can consume that in this way,
search() {
this.searchService.search(this.searchField.value)
.then((result) => {
this.result = result.artists.items;
})
.catch((error) => console.error(error));
}
See the original post here. But Typescript does not support native es6 Promises, if you want to use it, you might need plugin for that.
Additionally here is the promises spec define here.
edited Jul 6 '17 at 4:45
answered Aug 26 '14 at 8:11
Maleen AbewardanaMaleen Abewardana
6,40332734
6,40332734
13
This does not explain how promises would solve this issue at all though.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Nov 4 '14 at 2:29
4
It doesn't work. promiseB will get 'undefined'
– An Overflowed Stack
Nov 21 '14 at 15:35
3
jQuery and fetch methods both return promises as well. I would suggest revising your answer. Though jQuery's isn't quite the same (then is there, but catch isn't).
– Tracker1
Feb 19 '15 at 19:24
add a comment |
13
This does not explain how promises would solve this issue at all though.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Nov 4 '14 at 2:29
4
It doesn't work. promiseB will get 'undefined'
– An Overflowed Stack
Nov 21 '14 at 15:35
3
jQuery and fetch methods both return promises as well. I would suggest revising your answer. Though jQuery's isn't quite the same (then is there, but catch isn't).
– Tracker1
Feb 19 '15 at 19:24
13
13
This does not explain how promises would solve this issue at all though.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Nov 4 '14 at 2:29
This does not explain how promises would solve this issue at all though.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Nov 4 '14 at 2:29
4
4
It doesn't work. promiseB will get 'undefined'
– An Overflowed Stack
Nov 21 '14 at 15:35
It doesn't work. promiseB will get 'undefined'
– An Overflowed Stack
Nov 21 '14 at 15:35
3
3
jQuery and fetch methods both return promises as well. I would suggest revising your answer. Though jQuery's isn't quite the same (then is there, but catch isn't).
– Tracker1
Feb 19 '15 at 19:24
jQuery and fetch methods both return promises as well. I would suggest revising your answer. Though jQuery's isn't quite the same (then is there, but catch isn't).
– Tracker1
Feb 19 '15 at 19:24
add a comment |
Most of the answers here give useful suggestions for when you have a single async operation, but sometimes, this comes up when you need to do an asynchronous operation for each entry in an array or other list-like structure. The temptation is to do this:
// WRONG
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log(results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
Example:
// WRONG
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
The reason that doesn't work is that the callbacks from doSomethingAsync
haven't run yet by the time you're trying to use the results.
So, if you have an array (or list of some kind) and want to do async operations for each entry, you have two options: Do the operations in parallel (overlapping), or in series (one after another in sequence).
Parallel
You can start all of them and keep track of how many callbacks you're expecting, and then use the results when you've gotten that many callbacks:
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
Example:
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(We could do away with expecting
and just use results.length === theArray.length
, but that leaves us open to the possibility that theArray
is changed while the calls are outstanding...)
Notice how we use the index
from forEach
to save the result in results
in the same position as the entry it relates to, even if the results arrive out of order (since async calls don't necessarily complete in the order in which they were started).
But what if you need to return those results from a function? As the other answers have pointed out, you can't; you have to have your function accept and call a callback (or return a Promise). Here's a callback version:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Or here's a version returning a Promise
instead:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Of course, if doSomethingAsync
passed us errors, we'd use reject
to reject the promise when we got an error.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or alternately, you could make a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that returns a promise, and then do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, you can use Promise.all
:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Note that Promise.all
resolves its promise with an array of the results of all of the promises you give it when they are all resolved, or rejects its promise when the first of the promises you give it rejects.
Series
Suppose you don't want the operations to be in parallel? If you want to run them one after another, you need to wait for each operation to complete before you start the next. Here's an example of a function that does that and calls a callback with the result:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
(Since we're doing the work in series, we can just use results.push(result)
since we know we won't get results out of order. In the above we could have used results[index] = result;
, but in some of the following examples we don't have an index to use.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or, again, build a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that gives you a promise and do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, if you can use ES2017+ syntax (perhaps with a transpiler like Babel), you can use an async
function with for-of
and await
:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
If you can't use ES2017+ syntax (yet), you can use a variation on the "Promise reduce" pattern (this is more complex than the usual Promise reduce because we're not passing the result from one into the next, but instead gathering up their results in an array):
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
...which is less cumbersome with ES2015+ arrow functions:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
1
Could you explain how theif (--expecting === 0)
part of the code works please? The callback version of your solution is working great for me, I just don't understand how, with that statement, you are checking the number of responses completed. Appreciate it's just lack of knowledge on my part. Is there an alternative way that check could be written?
– Sarah
May 28 '17 at 10:21
@Sarah:expecting
starts out with the value ofarray.length
, which is how many requests we're going to make. We know the callback won't be called until all of those requests are started. In the callback,if (--expecting === 0)
does this: 1. Decrementsexpecting
(we've received a response, so we're expecting one fewer response) and if the value after the decrement is 0 (we're not expecting any more responses), we're done!
– T.J. Crowder
May 28 '17 at 18:31
add a comment |
Most of the answers here give useful suggestions for when you have a single async operation, but sometimes, this comes up when you need to do an asynchronous operation for each entry in an array or other list-like structure. The temptation is to do this:
// WRONG
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log(results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
Example:
// WRONG
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
The reason that doesn't work is that the callbacks from doSomethingAsync
haven't run yet by the time you're trying to use the results.
So, if you have an array (or list of some kind) and want to do async operations for each entry, you have two options: Do the operations in parallel (overlapping), or in series (one after another in sequence).
Parallel
You can start all of them and keep track of how many callbacks you're expecting, and then use the results when you've gotten that many callbacks:
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
Example:
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(We could do away with expecting
and just use results.length === theArray.length
, but that leaves us open to the possibility that theArray
is changed while the calls are outstanding...)
Notice how we use the index
from forEach
to save the result in results
in the same position as the entry it relates to, even if the results arrive out of order (since async calls don't necessarily complete in the order in which they were started).
But what if you need to return those results from a function? As the other answers have pointed out, you can't; you have to have your function accept and call a callback (or return a Promise). Here's a callback version:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Or here's a version returning a Promise
instead:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Of course, if doSomethingAsync
passed us errors, we'd use reject
to reject the promise when we got an error.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or alternately, you could make a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that returns a promise, and then do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, you can use Promise.all
:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Note that Promise.all
resolves its promise with an array of the results of all of the promises you give it when they are all resolved, or rejects its promise when the first of the promises you give it rejects.
Series
Suppose you don't want the operations to be in parallel? If you want to run them one after another, you need to wait for each operation to complete before you start the next. Here's an example of a function that does that and calls a callback with the result:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
(Since we're doing the work in series, we can just use results.push(result)
since we know we won't get results out of order. In the above we could have used results[index] = result;
, but in some of the following examples we don't have an index to use.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or, again, build a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that gives you a promise and do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, if you can use ES2017+ syntax (perhaps with a transpiler like Babel), you can use an async
function with for-of
and await
:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
If you can't use ES2017+ syntax (yet), you can use a variation on the "Promise reduce" pattern (this is more complex than the usual Promise reduce because we're not passing the result from one into the next, but instead gathering up their results in an array):
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
...which is less cumbersome with ES2015+ arrow functions:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
1
Could you explain how theif (--expecting === 0)
part of the code works please? The callback version of your solution is working great for me, I just don't understand how, with that statement, you are checking the number of responses completed. Appreciate it's just lack of knowledge on my part. Is there an alternative way that check could be written?
– Sarah
May 28 '17 at 10:21
@Sarah:expecting
starts out with the value ofarray.length
, which is how many requests we're going to make. We know the callback won't be called until all of those requests are started. In the callback,if (--expecting === 0)
does this: 1. Decrementsexpecting
(we've received a response, so we're expecting one fewer response) and if the value after the decrement is 0 (we're not expecting any more responses), we're done!
– T.J. Crowder
May 28 '17 at 18:31
add a comment |
Most of the answers here give useful suggestions for when you have a single async operation, but sometimes, this comes up when you need to do an asynchronous operation for each entry in an array or other list-like structure. The temptation is to do this:
// WRONG
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log(results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
Example:
// WRONG
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
The reason that doesn't work is that the callbacks from doSomethingAsync
haven't run yet by the time you're trying to use the results.
So, if you have an array (or list of some kind) and want to do async operations for each entry, you have two options: Do the operations in parallel (overlapping), or in series (one after another in sequence).
Parallel
You can start all of them and keep track of how many callbacks you're expecting, and then use the results when you've gotten that many callbacks:
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
Example:
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(We could do away with expecting
and just use results.length === theArray.length
, but that leaves us open to the possibility that theArray
is changed while the calls are outstanding...)
Notice how we use the index
from forEach
to save the result in results
in the same position as the entry it relates to, even if the results arrive out of order (since async calls don't necessarily complete in the order in which they were started).
But what if you need to return those results from a function? As the other answers have pointed out, you can't; you have to have your function accept and call a callback (or return a Promise). Here's a callback version:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Or here's a version returning a Promise
instead:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Of course, if doSomethingAsync
passed us errors, we'd use reject
to reject the promise when we got an error.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or alternately, you could make a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that returns a promise, and then do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, you can use Promise.all
:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Note that Promise.all
resolves its promise with an array of the results of all of the promises you give it when they are all resolved, or rejects its promise when the first of the promises you give it rejects.
Series
Suppose you don't want the operations to be in parallel? If you want to run them one after another, you need to wait for each operation to complete before you start the next. Here's an example of a function that does that and calls a callback with the result:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
(Since we're doing the work in series, we can just use results.push(result)
since we know we won't get results out of order. In the above we could have used results[index] = result;
, but in some of the following examples we don't have an index to use.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or, again, build a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that gives you a promise and do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, if you can use ES2017+ syntax (perhaps with a transpiler like Babel), you can use an async
function with for-of
and await
:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
If you can't use ES2017+ syntax (yet), you can use a variation on the "Promise reduce" pattern (this is more complex than the usual Promise reduce because we're not passing the result from one into the next, but instead gathering up their results in an array):
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
...which is less cumbersome with ES2015+ arrow functions:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Most of the answers here give useful suggestions for when you have a single async operation, but sometimes, this comes up when you need to do an asynchronous operation for each entry in an array or other list-like structure. The temptation is to do this:
// WRONG
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log(results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
Example:
// WRONG
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
The reason that doesn't work is that the callbacks from doSomethingAsync
haven't run yet by the time you're trying to use the results.
So, if you have an array (or list of some kind) and want to do async operations for each entry, you have two options: Do the operations in parallel (overlapping), or in series (one after another in sequence).
Parallel
You can start all of them and keep track of how many callbacks you're expecting, and then use the results when you've gotten that many callbacks:
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
Example:
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(We could do away with expecting
and just use results.length === theArray.length
, but that leaves us open to the possibility that theArray
is changed while the calls are outstanding...)
Notice how we use the index
from forEach
to save the result in results
in the same position as the entry it relates to, even if the results arrive out of order (since async calls don't necessarily complete in the order in which they were started).
But what if you need to return those results from a function? As the other answers have pointed out, you can't; you have to have your function accept and call a callback (or return a Promise). Here's a callback version:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Or here's a version returning a Promise
instead:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Of course, if doSomethingAsync
passed us errors, we'd use reject
to reject the promise when we got an error.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or alternately, you could make a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that returns a promise, and then do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, you can use Promise.all
:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
Note that Promise.all
resolves its promise with an array of the results of all of the promises you give it when they are all resolved, or rejects its promise when the first of the promises you give it rejects.
Series
Suppose you don't want the operations to be in parallel? If you want to run them one after another, you need to wait for each operation to complete before you start the next. Here's an example of a function that does that and calls a callback with the result:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith(theArray, function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
(Since we're doing the work in series, we can just use results.push(result)
since we know we won't get results out of order. In the above we could have used results[index] = result;
, but in some of the following examples we don't have an index to use.)
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
(Or, again, build a wrapper for doSomethingAsync
that gives you a promise and do the below...)
If doSomethingAsync
gives you a Promise, if you can use ES2017+ syntax (perhaps with a transpiler like Babel), you can use an async
function with for-of
and await
:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
If you can't use ES2017+ syntax (yet), you can use a variation on the "Promise reduce" pattern (this is more complex than the usual Promise reduce because we're not passing the result from one into the next, but instead gathering up their results in an array):
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
...which is less cumbersome with ES2015+ arrow functions:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith(theArray).then(results => {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
Example:
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
// WRONG
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
// WRONG
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
theArray.forEach(function(entry) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
});
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using them, returning them, etc.
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
var theArray = [1, 2, 3];
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
console.log("Results:", results); // E.g., using the results
}
});
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var results = ;
var expecting = theArray.length;
theArray.forEach(function(entry, index) {
doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results[index] = result;
if (--expecting === 0) {
// Done!
resolve(results);
}
});
});
});
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return Promise.all(theArray.map(function(entry) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry, function(result) {
results.push(result);
});
}));
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray, callback) {
var results = ;
doOne(0);
function doOne(index) {
if (index < theArray.length) {
doSomethingAsync(theArray[index], function(result) {
results.push(result);
doOne(index + 1);
});
} else {
// Done!
callback(results);
}
}
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3], function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value, callback) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
callback(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
async function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
const results = ;
for (const entry of theArray) {
results.push(await doSomethingAsync(entry));
}
return results;
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce(function(p, entry) {
return p.then(function(results) {
return doSomethingAsync(entry).then(function(result) {
results.push(result);
return results;
});
});
}, Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
function doSomethingWith(theArray) {
return theArray.reduce((p, entry) => p.then(results => doSomethingAsync(entry).then(result => {
results.push(result);
return results;
})), Promise.resolve());
}
doSomethingWith([1, 2, 3]).then(function(results) {
console.log("Results:", results);
});
function doSomethingAsync(value) {
console.log("Starting async operation for " + value);
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("Completing async operation for " + value);
resolve(value * 2);
}, Math.floor(Math.random() * 200));
});
}
.as-console-wrapper {
max-height: 100% !important;
}
edited Sep 13 '17 at 4:34
Joel Gritter
5831624
5831624
answered May 3 '17 at 16:59
T.J. CrowderT.J. Crowder
681k12112071302
681k12112071302
1
Could you explain how theif (--expecting === 0)
part of the code works please? The callback version of your solution is working great for me, I just don't understand how, with that statement, you are checking the number of responses completed. Appreciate it's just lack of knowledge on my part. Is there an alternative way that check could be written?
– Sarah
May 28 '17 at 10:21
@Sarah:expecting
starts out with the value ofarray.length
, which is how many requests we're going to make. We know the callback won't be called until all of those requests are started. In the callback,if (--expecting === 0)
does this: 1. Decrementsexpecting
(we've received a response, so we're expecting one fewer response) and if the value after the decrement is 0 (we're not expecting any more responses), we're done!
– T.J. Crowder
May 28 '17 at 18:31
add a comment |
1
Could you explain how theif (--expecting === 0)
part of the code works please? The callback version of your solution is working great for me, I just don't understand how, with that statement, you are checking the number of responses completed. Appreciate it's just lack of knowledge on my part. Is there an alternative way that check could be written?
– Sarah
May 28 '17 at 10:21
@Sarah:expecting
starts out with the value ofarray.length
, which is how many requests we're going to make. We know the callback won't be called until all of those requests are started. In the callback,if (--expecting === 0)
does this: 1. Decrementsexpecting
(we've received a response, so we're expecting one fewer response) and if the value after the decrement is 0 (we're not expecting any more responses), we're done!
– T.J. Crowder
May 28 '17 at 18:31
1
1
Could you explain how the
if (--expecting === 0)
part of the code works please? The callback version of your solution is working great for me, I just don't understand how, with that statement, you are checking the number of responses completed. Appreciate it's just lack of knowledge on my part. Is there an alternative way that check could be written?– Sarah
May 28 '17 at 10:21
Could you explain how the
if (--expecting === 0)
part of the code works please? The callback version of your solution is working great for me, I just don't understand how, with that statement, you are checking the number of responses completed. Appreciate it's just lack of knowledge on my part. Is there an alternative way that check could be written?– Sarah
May 28 '17 at 10:21
@Sarah:
expecting
starts out with the value of array.length
, which is how many requests we're going to make. We know the callback won't be called until all of those requests are started. In the callback, if (--expecting === 0)
does this: 1. Decrements expecting
(we've received a response, so we're expecting one fewer response) and if the value after the decrement is 0 (we're not expecting any more responses), we're done!– T.J. Crowder
May 28 '17 at 18:31
@Sarah:
expecting
starts out with the value of array.length
, which is how many requests we're going to make. We know the callback won't be called until all of those requests are started. In the callback, if (--expecting === 0)
does this: 1. Decrements expecting
(we've received a response, so we're expecting one fewer response) and if the value after the decrement is 0 (we're not expecting any more responses), we're done!– T.J. Crowder
May 28 '17 at 18:31
add a comment |
Have a look at this example:
var app = angular.module('plunker', );
app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope,$http) {
var getJoke = function(){
return $http.get('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random').then(function(res){
return res.data.value;
});
}
getJoke().then(function(res) {
console.log(res.joke);
});
});
As you can see getJoke
is returning a resolved promise (it is resolved when returning res.data.value
). So you wait until the $http.get request is completed and then console.log(res.joke) is executed (as a normal asynchronous flow).
This is the plnkr:
http://embed.plnkr.co/XlNR7HpCaIhJxskMJfSg/
ES6 way (async - await)
(function(){
async function getJoke(){
let response = await fetch('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random');
let data = await response.json();
return data.value;
}
getJoke().then((joke) => {
console.log(joke);
});
})();
add a comment |
Have a look at this example:
var app = angular.module('plunker', );
app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope,$http) {
var getJoke = function(){
return $http.get('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random').then(function(res){
return res.data.value;
});
}
getJoke().then(function(res) {
console.log(res.joke);
});
});
As you can see getJoke
is returning a resolved promise (it is resolved when returning res.data.value
). So you wait until the $http.get request is completed and then console.log(res.joke) is executed (as a normal asynchronous flow).
This is the plnkr:
http://embed.plnkr.co/XlNR7HpCaIhJxskMJfSg/
ES6 way (async - await)
(function(){
async function getJoke(){
let response = await fetch('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random');
let data = await response.json();
return data.value;
}
getJoke().then((joke) => {
console.log(joke);
});
})();
add a comment |
Have a look at this example:
var app = angular.module('plunker', );
app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope,$http) {
var getJoke = function(){
return $http.get('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random').then(function(res){
return res.data.value;
});
}
getJoke().then(function(res) {
console.log(res.joke);
});
});
As you can see getJoke
is returning a resolved promise (it is resolved when returning res.data.value
). So you wait until the $http.get request is completed and then console.log(res.joke) is executed (as a normal asynchronous flow).
This is the plnkr:
http://embed.plnkr.co/XlNR7HpCaIhJxskMJfSg/
ES6 way (async - await)
(function(){
async function getJoke(){
let response = await fetch('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random');
let data = await response.json();
return data.value;
}
getJoke().then((joke) => {
console.log(joke);
});
})();
Have a look at this example:
var app = angular.module('plunker', );
app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope,$http) {
var getJoke = function(){
return $http.get('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random').then(function(res){
return res.data.value;
});
}
getJoke().then(function(res) {
console.log(res.joke);
});
});
As you can see getJoke
is returning a resolved promise (it is resolved when returning res.data.value
). So you wait until the $http.get request is completed and then console.log(res.joke) is executed (as a normal asynchronous flow).
This is the plnkr:
http://embed.plnkr.co/XlNR7HpCaIhJxskMJfSg/
ES6 way (async - await)
(function(){
async function getJoke(){
let response = await fetch('http://api.icndb.com/jokes/random');
let data = await response.json();
return data.value;
}
getJoke().then((joke) => {
console.log(joke);
});
})();
edited Nov 23 '18 at 12:19
answered Jun 2 '16 at 8:31
Francisco CarmonaFrancisco Carmona
1,20649
1,20649
add a comment |
add a comment |
Another approach to return a value from an asynchronous function, is to pass in an object that will store the result from the asynchronous function.
Here is an example of the same:
var async = require("async");
// This wires up result back to the caller
var result = {};
var asyncTasks = ;
asyncTasks.push(function(_callback){
// some asynchronous operation
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response;
_callback();
}
});
});
async.parallel(asyncTasks, function(){
// result is available after performing asynchronous operation
console.log(result)
console.log('Done');
});
I am using the result
object to store the value during the asynchronous operation. This allows the result be available even after the asynchronous job.
I use this approach a lot. I would be interested to know how well this approach works where wiring the result back through consecutive modules is involved.
9
There is nothing special about using an object here. It would work as well if you assigned he response directly toresult
. It works because you are reading the variable after the async function is complete.
– Felix Kling
Sep 2 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
Another approach to return a value from an asynchronous function, is to pass in an object that will store the result from the asynchronous function.
Here is an example of the same:
var async = require("async");
// This wires up result back to the caller
var result = {};
var asyncTasks = ;
asyncTasks.push(function(_callback){
// some asynchronous operation
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response;
_callback();
}
});
});
async.parallel(asyncTasks, function(){
// result is available after performing asynchronous operation
console.log(result)
console.log('Done');
});
I am using the result
object to store the value during the asynchronous operation. This allows the result be available even after the asynchronous job.
I use this approach a lot. I would be interested to know how well this approach works where wiring the result back through consecutive modules is involved.
9
There is nothing special about using an object here. It would work as well if you assigned he response directly toresult
. It works because you are reading the variable after the async function is complete.
– Felix Kling
Sep 2 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
Another approach to return a value from an asynchronous function, is to pass in an object that will store the result from the asynchronous function.
Here is an example of the same:
var async = require("async");
// This wires up result back to the caller
var result = {};
var asyncTasks = ;
asyncTasks.push(function(_callback){
// some asynchronous operation
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response;
_callback();
}
});
});
async.parallel(asyncTasks, function(){
// result is available after performing asynchronous operation
console.log(result)
console.log('Done');
});
I am using the result
object to store the value during the asynchronous operation. This allows the result be available even after the asynchronous job.
I use this approach a lot. I would be interested to know how well this approach works where wiring the result back through consecutive modules is involved.
Another approach to return a value from an asynchronous function, is to pass in an object that will store the result from the asynchronous function.
Here is an example of the same:
var async = require("async");
// This wires up result back to the caller
var result = {};
var asyncTasks = ;
asyncTasks.push(function(_callback){
// some asynchronous operation
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response;
_callback();
}
});
});
async.parallel(asyncTasks, function(){
// result is available after performing asynchronous operation
console.log(result)
console.log('Done');
});
I am using the result
object to store the value during the asynchronous operation. This allows the result be available even after the asynchronous job.
I use this approach a lot. I would be interested to know how well this approach works where wiring the result back through consecutive modules is involved.
edited Dec 17 '16 at 12:55
Peter Mortensen
13.5k1984111
13.5k1984111
answered Sep 2 '15 at 12:54
jsbishtjsbisht
3,89053142
3,89053142
9
There is nothing special about using an object here. It would work as well if you assigned he response directly toresult
. It works because you are reading the variable after the async function is complete.
– Felix Kling
Sep 2 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
9
There is nothing special about using an object here. It would work as well if you assigned he response directly toresult
. It works because you are reading the variable after the async function is complete.
– Felix Kling
Sep 2 '15 at 13:18
9
9
There is nothing special about using an object here. It would work as well if you assigned he response directly to
result
. It works because you are reading the variable after the async function is complete.– Felix Kling
Sep 2 '15 at 13:18
There is nothing special about using an object here. It would work as well if you assigned he response directly to
result
. It works because you are reading the variable after the async function is complete.– Felix Kling
Sep 2 '15 at 13:18
add a comment |
This is one of the places which two ways data binding that's used in many new JavaScript frameworks will work greatly for you...
So if you are using Angular, React or any other frameworks which do two ways data binding, this issue is simply fixed for you, so in easy word, your result is undefined
at the first stage, so you have got result = undefined
before you receive the data, then as soon as you get the result, it will updated and get assigned to the new value which is respond of your Ajax call...
But how you can do it in pure javascript or jQuery for example as you asked in this question?
You can use a callback, promise and recently observable to handle it for you, for example in promises we have some function like success() or then() which will be executed when your data is ready for you, same with callback or subscribe function on observable.
For example in your case which you are using jQuery, you can do something like this:
$(document).ready(function(){
function foo() {
$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: function(data){
fooDone(data); //after we have data, we pass it to fooDone
}});
};
function fooDone(data) {
console.log(data); //fooDone has the data and console.log it
};
foo(); //call happens here
});
For more information study about promises and observables which are newer ways to do this async stuffs.
This is fine at global scope, but in some module context you probably want to ensure right context for the callback e.g.$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: fooDone.bind(this)});
– steve.sims
Jul 24 '17 at 6:14
5
This is actually incorrect as React is one-way data binding
– Matthew Brent
May 4 '18 at 15:57
@MatthewBrent you are not wrong, but not right also, React props are object and if changed, they change throughout the application, but its not a way that React developer recommend to use it...
– Alireza
May 14 '18 at 7:34
add a comment |
This is one of the places which two ways data binding that's used in many new JavaScript frameworks will work greatly for you...
So if you are using Angular, React or any other frameworks which do two ways data binding, this issue is simply fixed for you, so in easy word, your result is undefined
at the first stage, so you have got result = undefined
before you receive the data, then as soon as you get the result, it will updated and get assigned to the new value which is respond of your Ajax call...
But how you can do it in pure javascript or jQuery for example as you asked in this question?
You can use a callback, promise and recently observable to handle it for you, for example in promises we have some function like success() or then() which will be executed when your data is ready for you, same with callback or subscribe function on observable.
For example in your case which you are using jQuery, you can do something like this:
$(document).ready(function(){
function foo() {
$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: function(data){
fooDone(data); //after we have data, we pass it to fooDone
}});
};
function fooDone(data) {
console.log(data); //fooDone has the data and console.log it
};
foo(); //call happens here
});
For more information study about promises and observables which are newer ways to do this async stuffs.
This is fine at global scope, but in some module context you probably want to ensure right context for the callback e.g.$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: fooDone.bind(this)});
– steve.sims
Jul 24 '17 at 6:14
5
This is actually incorrect as React is one-way data binding
– Matthew Brent
May 4 '18 at 15:57
@MatthewBrent you are not wrong, but not right also, React props are object and if changed, they change throughout the application, but its not a way that React developer recommend to use it...
– Alireza
May 14 '18 at 7:34
add a comment |
This is one of the places which two ways data binding that's used in many new JavaScript frameworks will work greatly for you...
So if you are using Angular, React or any other frameworks which do two ways data binding, this issue is simply fixed for you, so in easy word, your result is undefined
at the first stage, so you have got result = undefined
before you receive the data, then as soon as you get the result, it will updated and get assigned to the new value which is respond of your Ajax call...
But how you can do it in pure javascript or jQuery for example as you asked in this question?
You can use a callback, promise and recently observable to handle it for you, for example in promises we have some function like success() or then() which will be executed when your data is ready for you, same with callback or subscribe function on observable.
For example in your case which you are using jQuery, you can do something like this:
$(document).ready(function(){
function foo() {
$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: function(data){
fooDone(data); //after we have data, we pass it to fooDone
}});
};
function fooDone(data) {
console.log(data); //fooDone has the data and console.log it
};
foo(); //call happens here
});
For more information study about promises and observables which are newer ways to do this async stuffs.
This is one of the places which two ways data binding that's used in many new JavaScript frameworks will work greatly for you...
So if you are using Angular, React or any other frameworks which do two ways data binding, this issue is simply fixed for you, so in easy word, your result is undefined
at the first stage, so you have got result = undefined
before you receive the data, then as soon as you get the result, it will updated and get assigned to the new value which is respond of your Ajax call...
But how you can do it in pure javascript or jQuery for example as you asked in this question?
You can use a callback, promise and recently observable to handle it for you, for example in promises we have some function like success() or then() which will be executed when your data is ready for you, same with callback or subscribe function on observable.
For example in your case which you are using jQuery, you can do something like this:
$(document).ready(function(){
function foo() {
$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: function(data){
fooDone(data); //after we have data, we pass it to fooDone
}});
};
function fooDone(data) {
console.log(data); //fooDone has the data and console.log it
};
foo(); //call happens here
});
For more information study about promises and observables which are newer ways to do this async stuffs.
edited May 25 '18 at 13:46
answered May 24 '17 at 9:38
AlirezaAlireza
46.7k12165119
46.7k12165119
This is fine at global scope, but in some module context you probably want to ensure right context for the callback e.g.$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: fooDone.bind(this)});
– steve.sims
Jul 24 '17 at 6:14
5
This is actually incorrect as React is one-way data binding
– Matthew Brent
May 4 '18 at 15:57
@MatthewBrent you are not wrong, but not right also, React props are object and if changed, they change throughout the application, but its not a way that React developer recommend to use it...
– Alireza
May 14 '18 at 7:34
add a comment |
This is fine at global scope, but in some module context you probably want to ensure right context for the callback e.g.$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: fooDone.bind(this)});
– steve.sims
Jul 24 '17 at 6:14
5
This is actually incorrect as React is one-way data binding
– Matthew Brent
May 4 '18 at 15:57
@MatthewBrent you are not wrong, but not right also, React props are object and if changed, they change throughout the application, but its not a way that React developer recommend to use it...
– Alireza
May 14 '18 at 7:34
This is fine at global scope, but in some module context you probably want to ensure right context for the callback e.g.
$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: fooDone.bind(this)});
– steve.sims
Jul 24 '17 at 6:14
This is fine at global scope, but in some module context you probably want to ensure right context for the callback e.g.
$.ajax({url: "api/data", success: fooDone.bind(this)});
– steve.sims
Jul 24 '17 at 6:14
5
5
This is actually incorrect as React is one-way data binding
– Matthew Brent
May 4 '18 at 15:57
This is actually incorrect as React is one-way data binding
– Matthew Brent
May 4 '18 at 15:57
@MatthewBrent you are not wrong, but not right also, React props are object and if changed, they change throughout the application, but its not a way that React developer recommend to use it...
– Alireza
May 14 '18 at 7:34
@MatthewBrent you are not wrong, but not right also, React props are object and if changed, they change throughout the application, but its not a way that React developer recommend to use it...
– Alireza
May 14 '18 at 7:34
add a comment |
While promises and callbacks work fine in many situations, it is a pain in the rear to express something like:
if (!name) {
name = async1();
}
async2(name);
You'd end up going through async1
; check if name
is undefined or not and call the callback accordingly.
async1(name, callback) {
if (name)
callback(name)
else {
doSomething(callback)
}
}
async1(name, async2)
While it is okay in small examples it gets annoying when you have a lot of similar cases and error handling involved.
Fibers
helps in solving the issue.
var Fiber = require('fibers')
function async1(container) {
var current = Fiber.current
var result
doSomething(function(name) {
result = name
fiber.run()
})
Fiber.yield()
return result
}
Fiber(function() {
var name
if (!name) {
name = async1()
}
async2(name)
// Make any number of async calls from here
}
You can checkout the project here.
@recurf - It's not my project. You could try using their issue tracker.
– rohithpr
Jan 20 '17 at 15:22
is this similar to generator functions? developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/…*
– Emanegux
Jun 7 '17 at 3:19
Is this still relevant?
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:43
You can make use ofasync-await
if you're using some of the newest versions of node. If someone is stuck with older versions they can use this method.
– rohithpr
Mar 20 '18 at 8:18
add a comment |
While promises and callbacks work fine in many situations, it is a pain in the rear to express something like:
if (!name) {
name = async1();
}
async2(name);
You'd end up going through async1
; check if name
is undefined or not and call the callback accordingly.
async1(name, callback) {
if (name)
callback(name)
else {
doSomething(callback)
}
}
async1(name, async2)
While it is okay in small examples it gets annoying when you have a lot of similar cases and error handling involved.
Fibers
helps in solving the issue.
var Fiber = require('fibers')
function async1(container) {
var current = Fiber.current
var result
doSomething(function(name) {
result = name
fiber.run()
})
Fiber.yield()
return result
}
Fiber(function() {
var name
if (!name) {
name = async1()
}
async2(name)
// Make any number of async calls from here
}
You can checkout the project here.
@recurf - It's not my project. You could try using their issue tracker.
– rohithpr
Jan 20 '17 at 15:22
is this similar to generator functions? developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/…*
– Emanegux
Jun 7 '17 at 3:19
Is this still relevant?
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:43
You can make use ofasync-await
if you're using some of the newest versions of node. If someone is stuck with older versions they can use this method.
– rohithpr
Mar 20 '18 at 8:18
add a comment |
While promises and callbacks work fine in many situations, it is a pain in the rear to express something like:
if (!name) {
name = async1();
}
async2(name);
You'd end up going through async1
; check if name
is undefined or not and call the callback accordingly.
async1(name, callback) {
if (name)
callback(name)
else {
doSomething(callback)
}
}
async1(name, async2)
While it is okay in small examples it gets annoying when you have a lot of similar cases and error handling involved.
Fibers
helps in solving the issue.
var Fiber = require('fibers')
function async1(container) {
var current = Fiber.current
var result
doSomething(function(name) {
result = name
fiber.run()
})
Fiber.yield()
return result
}
Fiber(function() {
var name
if (!name) {
name = async1()
}
async2(name)
// Make any number of async calls from here
}
You can checkout the project here.
While promises and callbacks work fine in many situations, it is a pain in the rear to express something like:
if (!name) {
name = async1();
}
async2(name);
You'd end up going through async1
; check if name
is undefined or not and call the callback accordingly.
async1(name, callback) {
if (name)
callback(name)
else {
doSomething(callback)
}
}
async1(name, async2)
While it is okay in small examples it gets annoying when you have a lot of similar cases and error handling involved.
Fibers
helps in solving the issue.
var Fiber = require('fibers')
function async1(container) {
var current = Fiber.current
var result
doSomething(function(name) {
result = name
fiber.run()
})
Fiber.yield()
return result
}
Fiber(function() {
var name
if (!name) {
name = async1()
}
async2(name)
// Make any number of async calls from here
}
You can checkout the project here.
edited May 9 '16 at 13:02
answered Jan 25 '16 at 17:43
rohithprrohithpr
2,58722138
2,58722138
@recurf - It's not my project. You could try using their issue tracker.
– rohithpr
Jan 20 '17 at 15:22
is this similar to generator functions? developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/…*
– Emanegux
Jun 7 '17 at 3:19
Is this still relevant?
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:43
You can make use ofasync-await
if you're using some of the newest versions of node. If someone is stuck with older versions they can use this method.
– rohithpr
Mar 20 '18 at 8:18
add a comment |
@recurf - It's not my project. You could try using their issue tracker.
– rohithpr
Jan 20 '17 at 15:22
is this similar to generator functions? developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/…*
– Emanegux
Jun 7 '17 at 3:19
Is this still relevant?
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:43
You can make use ofasync-await
if you're using some of the newest versions of node. If someone is stuck with older versions they can use this method.
– rohithpr
Mar 20 '18 at 8:18
@recurf - It's not my project. You could try using their issue tracker.
– rohithpr
Jan 20 '17 at 15:22
@recurf - It's not my project. You could try using their issue tracker.
– rohithpr
Jan 20 '17 at 15:22
is this similar to generator functions? developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/…*
– Emanegux
Jun 7 '17 at 3:19
is this similar to generator functions? developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/…*
– Emanegux
Jun 7 '17 at 3:19
Is this still relevant?
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:43
Is this still relevant?
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:43
You can make use of
async-await
if you're using some of the newest versions of node. If someone is stuck with older versions they can use this method.– rohithpr
Mar 20 '18 at 8:18
You can make use of
async-await
if you're using some of the newest versions of node. If someone is stuck with older versions they can use this method.– rohithpr
Mar 20 '18 at 8:18
add a comment |
Short answer is, you have to implement a callback like this:
function callback(response) {
// Here you can do what ever you want with the response object.
console.log(response);
}
$.ajax({
url: "...",
success: callback
});
add a comment |
Short answer is, you have to implement a callback like this:
function callback(response) {
// Here you can do what ever you want with the response object.
console.log(response);
}
$.ajax({
url: "...",
success: callback
});
add a comment |
Short answer is, you have to implement a callback like this:
function callback(response) {
// Here you can do what ever you want with the response object.
console.log(response);
}
$.ajax({
url: "...",
success: callback
});
Short answer is, you have to implement a callback like this:
function callback(response) {
// Here you can do what ever you want with the response object.
console.log(response);
}
$.ajax({
url: "...",
success: callback
});
edited Aug 9 '16 at 18:32
answered Apr 22 '16 at 14:47
Pablo Matias GomezPablo Matias Gomez
3,61442256
3,61442256
add a comment |
add a comment |
The following example I have written shows how to
- Handle asynchronous HTTP calls;
- Wait for response from each API call;
- Use Promise pattern;
- Use Promise.all pattern to join multiple HTTP calls;
This working example is self-contained. It will define a simple request object that uses the window XMLHttpRequest
object to make calls. It will define a simple function to wait for a bunch of promises to be completed.
Context. The example is querying the Spotify Web API endpoint in order to search for playlist
objects for a given set of query strings:
[
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
For each item, a new Promise will fire a block - ExecutionBlock
, parse the result, schedule a new set of promises based on the result array, that is a list of Spotify user
objects and execute the new HTTP call within the ExecutionProfileBlock
asynchronously.
You can then see a nested Promise structure, that lets you spawn multiple and completely asynchronous nested HTTP calls, and join the results from each subset of calls through Promise.all
.
NOTE
Recent Spotify search
APIs will require an access token to be specified in the request headers:
-H "Authorization: Bearer {your access token}"
So, you to run the following example you need to put your access token in the request headers:
var spotifyAccessToken = "YourSpotifyAccessToken";
var console = {
log: function(s) {
document.getElementById("console").innerHTML += s + "<br/>"
}
}
// Simple XMLHttpRequest
// based on https://davidwalsh.name/xmlhttprequest
SimpleRequest = {
call: function(what, response) {
var request;
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // Mozilla, Safari, ...
request = new XMLHttpRequest();
} else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // Internet Explorer
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.XMLHTTP');
}
catch (e) {
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
} catch (e) {}
}
}
// State changes
request.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (request.readyState === 4) { // Done
if (request.status === 200) { // Complete
response(request.responseText)
}
else
response();
}
}
request.open('GET', what, true);
request.setRequestHeader("Authorization", "Bearer " + spotifyAccessToken);
request.send(null);
}
}
//PromiseAll
var promiseAll = function(items, block, done, fail) {
var self = this;
var promises = ,
index = 0;
items.forEach(function(item) {
promises.push(function(item, i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
if (block) {
block.apply(this, [item, index, resolve, reject]);
}
});
}(item, ++index))
});
Promise.all(promises).then(function AcceptHandler(results) {
if (done) done(results);
}, function ErrorHandler(error) {
if (fail) fail(error);
});
}; //promiseAll
// LP: deferred execution block
var ExecutionBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
var url = "https://api.spotify.com/v1/"
url += item;
console.log( url )
SimpleRequest.call(url, function(result) {
if (result) {
var profileUrls = JSON.parse(result).playlists.items.map(function(item, index) {
return item.owner.href;
})
resolve(profileUrls);
}
else {
reject(new Error("call error"));
}
})
}
arr = [
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
promiseAll(arr, function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
console.log("Making request [" + index + "]")
ExecutionBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // Aggregated results
console.log("All profiles received " + results.length);
//console.log(JSON.stringify(results[0], null, 2));
///// promiseall again
var ExecutionProfileBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
SimpleRequest.call(item, function(result) {
if (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
resolve({
name: obj.display_name,
followers: obj.followers.total,
url: obj.href
});
} //result
})
} //ExecutionProfileBlock
promiseAll(results[0], function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
//console.log("Making request [" + index + "] " + item)
ExecutionProfileBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // aggregated results
console.log("All response received " + results.length);
console.log(JSON.stringify(results, null, 2));
}
, function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
})
/////
},
function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
});
<div id="console" />
I have extensively discussed this solution here.
add a comment |
The following example I have written shows how to
- Handle asynchronous HTTP calls;
- Wait for response from each API call;
- Use Promise pattern;
- Use Promise.all pattern to join multiple HTTP calls;
This working example is self-contained. It will define a simple request object that uses the window XMLHttpRequest
object to make calls. It will define a simple function to wait for a bunch of promises to be completed.
Context. The example is querying the Spotify Web API endpoint in order to search for playlist
objects for a given set of query strings:
[
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
For each item, a new Promise will fire a block - ExecutionBlock
, parse the result, schedule a new set of promises based on the result array, that is a list of Spotify user
objects and execute the new HTTP call within the ExecutionProfileBlock
asynchronously.
You can then see a nested Promise structure, that lets you spawn multiple and completely asynchronous nested HTTP calls, and join the results from each subset of calls through Promise.all
.
NOTE
Recent Spotify search
APIs will require an access token to be specified in the request headers:
-H "Authorization: Bearer {your access token}"
So, you to run the following example you need to put your access token in the request headers:
var spotifyAccessToken = "YourSpotifyAccessToken";
var console = {
log: function(s) {
document.getElementById("console").innerHTML += s + "<br/>"
}
}
// Simple XMLHttpRequest
// based on https://davidwalsh.name/xmlhttprequest
SimpleRequest = {
call: function(what, response) {
var request;
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // Mozilla, Safari, ...
request = new XMLHttpRequest();
} else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // Internet Explorer
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.XMLHTTP');
}
catch (e) {
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
} catch (e) {}
}
}
// State changes
request.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (request.readyState === 4) { // Done
if (request.status === 200) { // Complete
response(request.responseText)
}
else
response();
}
}
request.open('GET', what, true);
request.setRequestHeader("Authorization", "Bearer " + spotifyAccessToken);
request.send(null);
}
}
//PromiseAll
var promiseAll = function(items, block, done, fail) {
var self = this;
var promises = ,
index = 0;
items.forEach(function(item) {
promises.push(function(item, i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
if (block) {
block.apply(this, [item, index, resolve, reject]);
}
});
}(item, ++index))
});
Promise.all(promises).then(function AcceptHandler(results) {
if (done) done(results);
}, function ErrorHandler(error) {
if (fail) fail(error);
});
}; //promiseAll
// LP: deferred execution block
var ExecutionBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
var url = "https://api.spotify.com/v1/"
url += item;
console.log( url )
SimpleRequest.call(url, function(result) {
if (result) {
var profileUrls = JSON.parse(result).playlists.items.map(function(item, index) {
return item.owner.href;
})
resolve(profileUrls);
}
else {
reject(new Error("call error"));
}
})
}
arr = [
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
promiseAll(arr, function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
console.log("Making request [" + index + "]")
ExecutionBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // Aggregated results
console.log("All profiles received " + results.length);
//console.log(JSON.stringify(results[0], null, 2));
///// promiseall again
var ExecutionProfileBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
SimpleRequest.call(item, function(result) {
if (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
resolve({
name: obj.display_name,
followers: obj.followers.total,
url: obj.href
});
} //result
})
} //ExecutionProfileBlock
promiseAll(results[0], function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
//console.log("Making request [" + index + "] " + item)
ExecutionProfileBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // aggregated results
console.log("All response received " + results.length);
console.log(JSON.stringify(results, null, 2));
}
, function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
})
/////
},
function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
});
<div id="console" />
I have extensively discussed this solution here.
add a comment |
The following example I have written shows how to
- Handle asynchronous HTTP calls;
- Wait for response from each API call;
- Use Promise pattern;
- Use Promise.all pattern to join multiple HTTP calls;
This working example is self-contained. It will define a simple request object that uses the window XMLHttpRequest
object to make calls. It will define a simple function to wait for a bunch of promises to be completed.
Context. The example is querying the Spotify Web API endpoint in order to search for playlist
objects for a given set of query strings:
[
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
For each item, a new Promise will fire a block - ExecutionBlock
, parse the result, schedule a new set of promises based on the result array, that is a list of Spotify user
objects and execute the new HTTP call within the ExecutionProfileBlock
asynchronously.
You can then see a nested Promise structure, that lets you spawn multiple and completely asynchronous nested HTTP calls, and join the results from each subset of calls through Promise.all
.
NOTE
Recent Spotify search
APIs will require an access token to be specified in the request headers:
-H "Authorization: Bearer {your access token}"
So, you to run the following example you need to put your access token in the request headers:
var spotifyAccessToken = "YourSpotifyAccessToken";
var console = {
log: function(s) {
document.getElementById("console").innerHTML += s + "<br/>"
}
}
// Simple XMLHttpRequest
// based on https://davidwalsh.name/xmlhttprequest
SimpleRequest = {
call: function(what, response) {
var request;
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // Mozilla, Safari, ...
request = new XMLHttpRequest();
} else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // Internet Explorer
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.XMLHTTP');
}
catch (e) {
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
} catch (e) {}
}
}
// State changes
request.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (request.readyState === 4) { // Done
if (request.status === 200) { // Complete
response(request.responseText)
}
else
response();
}
}
request.open('GET', what, true);
request.setRequestHeader("Authorization", "Bearer " + spotifyAccessToken);
request.send(null);
}
}
//PromiseAll
var promiseAll = function(items, block, done, fail) {
var self = this;
var promises = ,
index = 0;
items.forEach(function(item) {
promises.push(function(item, i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
if (block) {
block.apply(this, [item, index, resolve, reject]);
}
});
}(item, ++index))
});
Promise.all(promises).then(function AcceptHandler(results) {
if (done) done(results);
}, function ErrorHandler(error) {
if (fail) fail(error);
});
}; //promiseAll
// LP: deferred execution block
var ExecutionBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
var url = "https://api.spotify.com/v1/"
url += item;
console.log( url )
SimpleRequest.call(url, function(result) {
if (result) {
var profileUrls = JSON.parse(result).playlists.items.map(function(item, index) {
return item.owner.href;
})
resolve(profileUrls);
}
else {
reject(new Error("call error"));
}
})
}
arr = [
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
promiseAll(arr, function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
console.log("Making request [" + index + "]")
ExecutionBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // Aggregated results
console.log("All profiles received " + results.length);
//console.log(JSON.stringify(results[0], null, 2));
///// promiseall again
var ExecutionProfileBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
SimpleRequest.call(item, function(result) {
if (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
resolve({
name: obj.display_name,
followers: obj.followers.total,
url: obj.href
});
} //result
})
} //ExecutionProfileBlock
promiseAll(results[0], function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
//console.log("Making request [" + index + "] " + item)
ExecutionProfileBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // aggregated results
console.log("All response received " + results.length);
console.log(JSON.stringify(results, null, 2));
}
, function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
})
/////
},
function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
});
<div id="console" />
I have extensively discussed this solution here.
The following example I have written shows how to
- Handle asynchronous HTTP calls;
- Wait for response from each API call;
- Use Promise pattern;
- Use Promise.all pattern to join multiple HTTP calls;
This working example is self-contained. It will define a simple request object that uses the window XMLHttpRequest
object to make calls. It will define a simple function to wait for a bunch of promises to be completed.
Context. The example is querying the Spotify Web API endpoint in order to search for playlist
objects for a given set of query strings:
[
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
For each item, a new Promise will fire a block - ExecutionBlock
, parse the result, schedule a new set of promises based on the result array, that is a list of Spotify user
objects and execute the new HTTP call within the ExecutionProfileBlock
asynchronously.
You can then see a nested Promise structure, that lets you spawn multiple and completely asynchronous nested HTTP calls, and join the results from each subset of calls through Promise.all
.
NOTE
Recent Spotify search
APIs will require an access token to be specified in the request headers:
-H "Authorization: Bearer {your access token}"
So, you to run the following example you need to put your access token in the request headers:
var spotifyAccessToken = "YourSpotifyAccessToken";
var console = {
log: function(s) {
document.getElementById("console").innerHTML += s + "<br/>"
}
}
// Simple XMLHttpRequest
// based on https://davidwalsh.name/xmlhttprequest
SimpleRequest = {
call: function(what, response) {
var request;
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // Mozilla, Safari, ...
request = new XMLHttpRequest();
} else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // Internet Explorer
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.XMLHTTP');
}
catch (e) {
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
} catch (e) {}
}
}
// State changes
request.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (request.readyState === 4) { // Done
if (request.status === 200) { // Complete
response(request.responseText)
}
else
response();
}
}
request.open('GET', what, true);
request.setRequestHeader("Authorization", "Bearer " + spotifyAccessToken);
request.send(null);
}
}
//PromiseAll
var promiseAll = function(items, block, done, fail) {
var self = this;
var promises = ,
index = 0;
items.forEach(function(item) {
promises.push(function(item, i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
if (block) {
block.apply(this, [item, index, resolve, reject]);
}
});
}(item, ++index))
});
Promise.all(promises).then(function AcceptHandler(results) {
if (done) done(results);
}, function ErrorHandler(error) {
if (fail) fail(error);
});
}; //promiseAll
// LP: deferred execution block
var ExecutionBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
var url = "https://api.spotify.com/v1/"
url += item;
console.log( url )
SimpleRequest.call(url, function(result) {
if (result) {
var profileUrls = JSON.parse(result).playlists.items.map(function(item, index) {
return item.owner.href;
})
resolve(profileUrls);
}
else {
reject(new Error("call error"));
}
})
}
arr = [
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
promiseAll(arr, function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
console.log("Making request [" + index + "]")
ExecutionBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // Aggregated results
console.log("All profiles received " + results.length);
//console.log(JSON.stringify(results[0], null, 2));
///// promiseall again
var ExecutionProfileBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
SimpleRequest.call(item, function(result) {
if (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
resolve({
name: obj.display_name,
followers: obj.followers.total,
url: obj.href
});
} //result
})
} //ExecutionProfileBlock
promiseAll(results[0], function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
//console.log("Making request [" + index + "] " + item)
ExecutionProfileBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // aggregated results
console.log("All response received " + results.length);
console.log(JSON.stringify(results, null, 2));
}
, function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
})
/////
},
function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
});
<div id="console" />
I have extensively discussed this solution here.
var spotifyAccessToken = "YourSpotifyAccessToken";
var console = {
log: function(s) {
document.getElementById("console").innerHTML += s + "<br/>"
}
}
// Simple XMLHttpRequest
// based on https://davidwalsh.name/xmlhttprequest
SimpleRequest = {
call: function(what, response) {
var request;
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // Mozilla, Safari, ...
request = new XMLHttpRequest();
} else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // Internet Explorer
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.XMLHTTP');
}
catch (e) {
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
} catch (e) {}
}
}
// State changes
request.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (request.readyState === 4) { // Done
if (request.status === 200) { // Complete
response(request.responseText)
}
else
response();
}
}
request.open('GET', what, true);
request.setRequestHeader("Authorization", "Bearer " + spotifyAccessToken);
request.send(null);
}
}
//PromiseAll
var promiseAll = function(items, block, done, fail) {
var self = this;
var promises = ,
index = 0;
items.forEach(function(item) {
promises.push(function(item, i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
if (block) {
block.apply(this, [item, index, resolve, reject]);
}
});
}(item, ++index))
});
Promise.all(promises).then(function AcceptHandler(results) {
if (done) done(results);
}, function ErrorHandler(error) {
if (fail) fail(error);
});
}; //promiseAll
// LP: deferred execution block
var ExecutionBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
var url = "https://api.spotify.com/v1/"
url += item;
console.log( url )
SimpleRequest.call(url, function(result) {
if (result) {
var profileUrls = JSON.parse(result).playlists.items.map(function(item, index) {
return item.owner.href;
})
resolve(profileUrls);
}
else {
reject(new Error("call error"));
}
})
}
arr = [
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
promiseAll(arr, function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
console.log("Making request [" + index + "]")
ExecutionBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // Aggregated results
console.log("All profiles received " + results.length);
//console.log(JSON.stringify(results[0], null, 2));
///// promiseall again
var ExecutionProfileBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
SimpleRequest.call(item, function(result) {
if (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
resolve({
name: obj.display_name,
followers: obj.followers.total,
url: obj.href
});
} //result
})
} //ExecutionProfileBlock
promiseAll(results[0], function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
//console.log("Making request [" + index + "] " + item)
ExecutionProfileBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // aggregated results
console.log("All response received " + results.length);
console.log(JSON.stringify(results, null, 2));
}
, function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
})
/////
},
function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
});
<div id="console" />
var spotifyAccessToken = "YourSpotifyAccessToken";
var console = {
log: function(s) {
document.getElementById("console").innerHTML += s + "<br/>"
}
}
// Simple XMLHttpRequest
// based on https://davidwalsh.name/xmlhttprequest
SimpleRequest = {
call: function(what, response) {
var request;
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // Mozilla, Safari, ...
request = new XMLHttpRequest();
} else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // Internet Explorer
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.XMLHTTP');
}
catch (e) {
try {
request = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
} catch (e) {}
}
}
// State changes
request.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (request.readyState === 4) { // Done
if (request.status === 200) { // Complete
response(request.responseText)
}
else
response();
}
}
request.open('GET', what, true);
request.setRequestHeader("Authorization", "Bearer " + spotifyAccessToken);
request.send(null);
}
}
//PromiseAll
var promiseAll = function(items, block, done, fail) {
var self = this;
var promises = ,
index = 0;
items.forEach(function(item) {
promises.push(function(item, i) {
return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
if (block) {
block.apply(this, [item, index, resolve, reject]);
}
});
}(item, ++index))
});
Promise.all(promises).then(function AcceptHandler(results) {
if (done) done(results);
}, function ErrorHandler(error) {
if (fail) fail(error);
});
}; //promiseAll
// LP: deferred execution block
var ExecutionBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
var url = "https://api.spotify.com/v1/"
url += item;
console.log( url )
SimpleRequest.call(url, function(result) {
if (result) {
var profileUrls = JSON.parse(result).playlists.items.map(function(item, index) {
return item.owner.href;
})
resolve(profileUrls);
}
else {
reject(new Error("call error"));
}
})
}
arr = [
"search?type=playlist&q=%22doom%20metal%22",
"search?type=playlist&q=Adele"
]
promiseAll(arr, function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
console.log("Making request [" + index + "]")
ExecutionBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // Aggregated results
console.log("All profiles received " + results.length);
//console.log(JSON.stringify(results[0], null, 2));
///// promiseall again
var ExecutionProfileBlock = function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
SimpleRequest.call(item, function(result) {
if (result) {
var obj = JSON.parse(result);
resolve({
name: obj.display_name,
followers: obj.followers.total,
url: obj.href
});
} //result
})
} //ExecutionProfileBlock
promiseAll(results[0], function(item, index, resolve, reject) {
//console.log("Making request [" + index + "] " + item)
ExecutionProfileBlock(item, index, resolve, reject);
}, function(results) { // aggregated results
console.log("All response received " + results.length);
console.log(JSON.stringify(results, null, 2));
}
, function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
})
/////
},
function(error) { // Error
console.log(error);
});
<div id="console" />
edited Nov 28 '18 at 16:42
answered Apr 12 '16 at 22:55
loretoparisiloretoparisi
7,63754772
7,63754772
add a comment |
add a comment |
2017 answer: you can now do exactly what you want in every current browser and node
This is quite simple:
- Return a Promise
- Use the 'await', which will tell JavaScript to await the promise to be resolved into a value (like the HTTP response)
- Add the 'async' keyword to the parent function
Here's a working version of your code:
(async function(){
var response = await superagent.get('...')
console.log(response)
})()
await is supported in all current browsers and node 8
6
Unfortunately, this works only with functions that return promises – for example it doesn't work with Node.js API, which uses callbacks. And I wouldn't recommend using it without Babel, because not everyone uses "current browsers".
– Michał Perłakowski
Jun 8 '17 at 6:47
1
@MichałPerłakowski node 8 includes nodejs.org/api/util.html#util_util_promisify_original which can be used to make the node.js API return promises. Whether you have the time and money to support non-current browsers obviously depends on your situation.
– mikemaccana
Jun 9 '17 at 18:28
IE 11 is still a current browser in 2018, sadly and it doesn't supportawait/async
– Juan Mendes
Oct 4 '18 at 14:51
IE11 is not a current browser. It was released 5 years ago, has a worldwide market share of 2.5% according to caniuse, and unless someone is doubling your budget to ignore all current tech then it's not worth most people's time.
– mikemaccana
Oct 4 '18 at 14:57
add a comment |
2017 answer: you can now do exactly what you want in every current browser and node
This is quite simple:
- Return a Promise
- Use the 'await', which will tell JavaScript to await the promise to be resolved into a value (like the HTTP response)
- Add the 'async' keyword to the parent function
Here's a working version of your code:
(async function(){
var response = await superagent.get('...')
console.log(response)
})()
await is supported in all current browsers and node 8
6
Unfortunately, this works only with functions that return promises – for example it doesn't work with Node.js API, which uses callbacks. And I wouldn't recommend using it without Babel, because not everyone uses "current browsers".
– Michał Perłakowski
Jun 8 '17 at 6:47
1
@MichałPerłakowski node 8 includes nodejs.org/api/util.html#util_util_promisify_original which can be used to make the node.js API return promises. Whether you have the time and money to support non-current browsers obviously depends on your situation.
– mikemaccana
Jun 9 '17 at 18:28
IE 11 is still a current browser in 2018, sadly and it doesn't supportawait/async
– Juan Mendes
Oct 4 '18 at 14:51
IE11 is not a current browser. It was released 5 years ago, has a worldwide market share of 2.5% according to caniuse, and unless someone is doubling your budget to ignore all current tech then it's not worth most people's time.
– mikemaccana
Oct 4 '18 at 14:57
add a comment |
2017 answer: you can now do exactly what you want in every current browser and node
This is quite simple:
- Return a Promise
- Use the 'await', which will tell JavaScript to await the promise to be resolved into a value (like the HTTP response)
- Add the 'async' keyword to the parent function
Here's a working version of your code:
(async function(){
var response = await superagent.get('...')
console.log(response)
})()
await is supported in all current browsers and node 8
2017 answer: you can now do exactly what you want in every current browser and node
This is quite simple:
- Return a Promise
- Use the 'await', which will tell JavaScript to await the promise to be resolved into a value (like the HTTP response)
- Add the 'async' keyword to the parent function
Here's a working version of your code:
(async function(){
var response = await superagent.get('...')
console.log(response)
})()
await is supported in all current browsers and node 8
edited Oct 1 '18 at 10:06
answered Jun 2 '17 at 9:51
mikemaccanamikemaccana
42k46229295
42k46229295
6
Unfortunately, this works only with functions that return promises – for example it doesn't work with Node.js API, which uses callbacks. And I wouldn't recommend using it without Babel, because not everyone uses "current browsers".
– Michał Perłakowski
Jun 8 '17 at 6:47
1
@MichałPerłakowski node 8 includes nodejs.org/api/util.html#util_util_promisify_original which can be used to make the node.js API return promises. Whether you have the time and money to support non-current browsers obviously depends on your situation.
– mikemaccana
Jun 9 '17 at 18:28
IE 11 is still a current browser in 2018, sadly and it doesn't supportawait/async
– Juan Mendes
Oct 4 '18 at 14:51
IE11 is not a current browser. It was released 5 years ago, has a worldwide market share of 2.5% according to caniuse, and unless someone is doubling your budget to ignore all current tech then it's not worth most people's time.
– mikemaccana
Oct 4 '18 at 14:57
add a comment |
6
Unfortunately, this works only with functions that return promises – for example it doesn't work with Node.js API, which uses callbacks. And I wouldn't recommend using it without Babel, because not everyone uses "current browsers".
– Michał Perłakowski
Jun 8 '17 at 6:47
1
@MichałPerłakowski node 8 includes nodejs.org/api/util.html#util_util_promisify_original which can be used to make the node.js API return promises. Whether you have the time and money to support non-current browsers obviously depends on your situation.
– mikemaccana
Jun 9 '17 at 18:28
IE 11 is still a current browser in 2018, sadly and it doesn't supportawait/async
– Juan Mendes
Oct 4 '18 at 14:51
IE11 is not a current browser. It was released 5 years ago, has a worldwide market share of 2.5% according to caniuse, and unless someone is doubling your budget to ignore all current tech then it's not worth most people's time.
– mikemaccana
Oct 4 '18 at 14:57
6
6
Unfortunately, this works only with functions that return promises – for example it doesn't work with Node.js API, which uses callbacks. And I wouldn't recommend using it without Babel, because not everyone uses "current browsers".
– Michał Perłakowski
Jun 8 '17 at 6:47
Unfortunately, this works only with functions that return promises – for example it doesn't work with Node.js API, which uses callbacks. And I wouldn't recommend using it without Babel, because not everyone uses "current browsers".
– Michał Perłakowski
Jun 8 '17 at 6:47
1
1
@MichałPerłakowski node 8 includes nodejs.org/api/util.html#util_util_promisify_original which can be used to make the node.js API return promises. Whether you have the time and money to support non-current browsers obviously depends on your situation.
– mikemaccana
Jun 9 '17 at 18:28
@MichałPerłakowski node 8 includes nodejs.org/api/util.html#util_util_promisify_original which can be used to make the node.js API return promises. Whether you have the time and money to support non-current browsers obviously depends on your situation.
– mikemaccana
Jun 9 '17 at 18:28
IE 11 is still a current browser in 2018, sadly and it doesn't support
await/async
– Juan Mendes
Oct 4 '18 at 14:51
IE 11 is still a current browser in 2018, sadly and it doesn't support
await/async
– Juan Mendes
Oct 4 '18 at 14:51
IE11 is not a current browser. It was released 5 years ago, has a worldwide market share of 2.5% according to caniuse, and unless someone is doubling your budget to ignore all current tech then it's not worth most people's time.
– mikemaccana
Oct 4 '18 at 14:57
IE11 is not a current browser. It was released 5 years ago, has a worldwide market share of 2.5% according to caniuse, and unless someone is doubling your budget to ignore all current tech then it's not worth most people's time.
– mikemaccana
Oct 4 '18 at 14:57
add a comment |
You can use this custom library (written using Promise) to make a remote call.
function $http(apiConfig) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
var client = new XMLHttpRequest();
client.open(apiConfig.method, apiConfig.url);
client.send();
client.onload = function () {
if (this.status >= 200 && this.status < 300) {
// Performs the function "resolve" when this.status is equal to 2xx.
// Your logic here.
resolve(this.response);
}
else {
// Performs the function "reject" when this.status is different than 2xx.
reject(this.statusText);
}
};
client.onerror = function () {
reject(this.statusText);
};
});
}
Simple usage example:
$http({
method: 'get',
url: 'google.com'
}).then(function(response) {
console.log(response);
}, function(error) {
console.log(error)
});
add a comment |
You can use this custom library (written using Promise) to make a remote call.
function $http(apiConfig) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
var client = new XMLHttpRequest();
client.open(apiConfig.method, apiConfig.url);
client.send();
client.onload = function () {
if (this.status >= 200 && this.status < 300) {
// Performs the function "resolve" when this.status is equal to 2xx.
// Your logic here.
resolve(this.response);
}
else {
// Performs the function "reject" when this.status is different than 2xx.
reject(this.statusText);
}
};
client.onerror = function () {
reject(this.statusText);
};
});
}
Simple usage example:
$http({
method: 'get',
url: 'google.com'
}).then(function(response) {
console.log(response);
}, function(error) {
console.log(error)
});
add a comment |
You can use this custom library (written using Promise) to make a remote call.
function $http(apiConfig) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
var client = new XMLHttpRequest();
client.open(apiConfig.method, apiConfig.url);
client.send();
client.onload = function () {
if (this.status >= 200 && this.status < 300) {
// Performs the function "resolve" when this.status is equal to 2xx.
// Your logic here.
resolve(this.response);
}
else {
// Performs the function "reject" when this.status is different than 2xx.
reject(this.statusText);
}
};
client.onerror = function () {
reject(this.statusText);
};
});
}
Simple usage example:
$http({
method: 'get',
url: 'google.com'
}).then(function(response) {
console.log(response);
}, function(error) {
console.log(error)
});
You can use this custom library (written using Promise) to make a remote call.
function $http(apiConfig) {
return new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {
var client = new XMLHttpRequest();
client.open(apiConfig.method, apiConfig.url);
client.send();
client.onload = function () {
if (this.status >= 200 && this.status < 300) {
// Performs the function "resolve" when this.status is equal to 2xx.
// Your logic here.
resolve(this.response);
}
else {
// Performs the function "reject" when this.status is different than 2xx.
reject(this.statusText);
}
};
client.onerror = function () {
reject(this.statusText);
};
});
}
Simple usage example:
$http({
method: 'get',
url: 'google.com'
}).then(function(response) {
console.log(response);
}, function(error) {
console.log(error)
});
edited Dec 17 '16 at 10:59
Peter Mortensen
13.5k1984111
13.5k1984111
answered May 26 '16 at 13:26
Vinoth RajendranVinoth Rajendran
7121722
7121722
add a comment |
add a comment |
Js is a single threaded.
Browser can be divided into three parts:
1)Event Loop
2)Web API
3)Event Queue
Event Loop runs for forever i.e kind of infinite loop.Event Queue is where all your function are pushed on some event(example:click) this is one by one carried out of queue and put into Event loop which execute this function and prepares it self for next one after first one is executed.This means Execution of one function doesn't starts till the function before it in queue is executed in event loop.
Now let us think we pushed two functions in a queue one is for getting a data from server and another utilises that data.We pushed the serverRequest() function in queue first then utiliseData() function. serverRequest function goes in event loop and makes a call to server as we never know how much time it will take to get data from server
so this process is expected to take time and so we busy our event loop thus hanging our page, that's where Web API come into role it take this function from event loop and deals with server making event loop free so that we can execute next function from queue.The next function in queue is utiliseData() which goes in loop but because of no data available it goes waste and execution of next function continues till end of the queue.(This is called Async calling i.e we can do something else till we get data)
Let suppose our serverRequest() function had a return statement in a code, when we get back data from server Web API will push it in queue at the end of queue.
As it get pushed at end in queue we cannot utilise its data as there is no function left in our queue to utilise this data.Thus it is not possible to return something from Async Call.
Thus Solution to this is callback or promise.
A Image from one of the answers here, Correctly explains callback use...
We give our function(function utilising data returned from server) to function calling server.
function doAjax(callbackFunc, method, url) {
var xmlHttpReq = new XMLHttpRequest();
xmlHttpReq.open(method, url);
xmlHttpReq.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (xmlHttpReq.readyState == 4 && xmlHttpReq.status == 200) {
callbackFunc(xmlHttpReq.responseText);
}
}
xmlHttpReq.send(null);
}
In my Code it is called as
function loadMyJson(categoryValue){
if(categoryValue==="veg")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/vegetables");
else if(categoryValue==="fruits")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/fruits");
else
console.log("Data not found");
}
Read here for new methods in ECMA(2016/17) for making async call(@Felix Kling Answer on Top)
https://stackoverflow.com/a/14220323/7579856
for nice picture +1
– Kamil Kiełczewski
Dec 3 '18 at 18:12
add a comment |
Js is a single threaded.
Browser can be divided into three parts:
1)Event Loop
2)Web API
3)Event Queue
Event Loop runs for forever i.e kind of infinite loop.Event Queue is where all your function are pushed on some event(example:click) this is one by one carried out of queue and put into Event loop which execute this function and prepares it self for next one after first one is executed.This means Execution of one function doesn't starts till the function before it in queue is executed in event loop.
Now let us think we pushed two functions in a queue one is for getting a data from server and another utilises that data.We pushed the serverRequest() function in queue first then utiliseData() function. serverRequest function goes in event loop and makes a call to server as we never know how much time it will take to get data from server
so this process is expected to take time and so we busy our event loop thus hanging our page, that's where Web API come into role it take this function from event loop and deals with server making event loop free so that we can execute next function from queue.The next function in queue is utiliseData() which goes in loop but because of no data available it goes waste and execution of next function continues till end of the queue.(This is called Async calling i.e we can do something else till we get data)
Let suppose our serverRequest() function had a return statement in a code, when we get back data from server Web API will push it in queue at the end of queue.
As it get pushed at end in queue we cannot utilise its data as there is no function left in our queue to utilise this data.Thus it is not possible to return something from Async Call.
Thus Solution to this is callback or promise.
A Image from one of the answers here, Correctly explains callback use...
We give our function(function utilising data returned from server) to function calling server.
function doAjax(callbackFunc, method, url) {
var xmlHttpReq = new XMLHttpRequest();
xmlHttpReq.open(method, url);
xmlHttpReq.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (xmlHttpReq.readyState == 4 && xmlHttpReq.status == 200) {
callbackFunc(xmlHttpReq.responseText);
}
}
xmlHttpReq.send(null);
}
In my Code it is called as
function loadMyJson(categoryValue){
if(categoryValue==="veg")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/vegetables");
else if(categoryValue==="fruits")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/fruits");
else
console.log("Data not found");
}
Read here for new methods in ECMA(2016/17) for making async call(@Felix Kling Answer on Top)
https://stackoverflow.com/a/14220323/7579856
for nice picture +1
– Kamil Kiełczewski
Dec 3 '18 at 18:12
add a comment |
Js is a single threaded.
Browser can be divided into three parts:
1)Event Loop
2)Web API
3)Event Queue
Event Loop runs for forever i.e kind of infinite loop.Event Queue is where all your function are pushed on some event(example:click) this is one by one carried out of queue and put into Event loop which execute this function and prepares it self for next one after first one is executed.This means Execution of one function doesn't starts till the function before it in queue is executed in event loop.
Now let us think we pushed two functions in a queue one is for getting a data from server and another utilises that data.We pushed the serverRequest() function in queue first then utiliseData() function. serverRequest function goes in event loop and makes a call to server as we never know how much time it will take to get data from server
so this process is expected to take time and so we busy our event loop thus hanging our page, that's where Web API come into role it take this function from event loop and deals with server making event loop free so that we can execute next function from queue.The next function in queue is utiliseData() which goes in loop but because of no data available it goes waste and execution of next function continues till end of the queue.(This is called Async calling i.e we can do something else till we get data)
Let suppose our serverRequest() function had a return statement in a code, when we get back data from server Web API will push it in queue at the end of queue.
As it get pushed at end in queue we cannot utilise its data as there is no function left in our queue to utilise this data.Thus it is not possible to return something from Async Call.
Thus Solution to this is callback or promise.
A Image from one of the answers here, Correctly explains callback use...
We give our function(function utilising data returned from server) to function calling server.
function doAjax(callbackFunc, method, url) {
var xmlHttpReq = new XMLHttpRequest();
xmlHttpReq.open(method, url);
xmlHttpReq.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (xmlHttpReq.readyState == 4 && xmlHttpReq.status == 200) {
callbackFunc(xmlHttpReq.responseText);
}
}
xmlHttpReq.send(null);
}
In my Code it is called as
function loadMyJson(categoryValue){
if(categoryValue==="veg")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/vegetables");
else if(categoryValue==="fruits")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/fruits");
else
console.log("Data not found");
}
Read here for new methods in ECMA(2016/17) for making async call(@Felix Kling Answer on Top)
https://stackoverflow.com/a/14220323/7579856
Js is a single threaded.
Browser can be divided into three parts:
1)Event Loop
2)Web API
3)Event Queue
Event Loop runs for forever i.e kind of infinite loop.Event Queue is where all your function are pushed on some event(example:click) this is one by one carried out of queue and put into Event loop which execute this function and prepares it self for next one after first one is executed.This means Execution of one function doesn't starts till the function before it in queue is executed in event loop.
Now let us think we pushed two functions in a queue one is for getting a data from server and another utilises that data.We pushed the serverRequest() function in queue first then utiliseData() function. serverRequest function goes in event loop and makes a call to server as we never know how much time it will take to get data from server
so this process is expected to take time and so we busy our event loop thus hanging our page, that's where Web API come into role it take this function from event loop and deals with server making event loop free so that we can execute next function from queue.The next function in queue is utiliseData() which goes in loop but because of no data available it goes waste and execution of next function continues till end of the queue.(This is called Async calling i.e we can do something else till we get data)
Let suppose our serverRequest() function had a return statement in a code, when we get back data from server Web API will push it in queue at the end of queue.
As it get pushed at end in queue we cannot utilise its data as there is no function left in our queue to utilise this data.Thus it is not possible to return something from Async Call.
Thus Solution to this is callback or promise.
A Image from one of the answers here, Correctly explains callback use...
We give our function(function utilising data returned from server) to function calling server.
function doAjax(callbackFunc, method, url) {
var xmlHttpReq = new XMLHttpRequest();
xmlHttpReq.open(method, url);
xmlHttpReq.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (xmlHttpReq.readyState == 4 && xmlHttpReq.status == 200) {
callbackFunc(xmlHttpReq.responseText);
}
}
xmlHttpReq.send(null);
}
In my Code it is called as
function loadMyJson(categoryValue){
if(categoryValue==="veg")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/vegetables");
else if(categoryValue==="fruits")
doAjax(print,"GET","http://localhost:3004/fruits");
else
console.log("Data not found");
}
Read here for new methods in ECMA(2016/17) for making async call(@Felix Kling Answer on Top)
https://stackoverflow.com/a/14220323/7579856
edited Mar 16 '18 at 16:48
answered Feb 3 '18 at 6:06
Aniket JhaAniket Jha
865510
865510
for nice picture +1
– Kamil Kiełczewski
Dec 3 '18 at 18:12
add a comment |
for nice picture +1
– Kamil Kiełczewski
Dec 3 '18 at 18:12
for nice picture +1
– Kamil Kiełczewski
Dec 3 '18 at 18:12
for nice picture +1
– Kamil Kiełczewski
Dec 3 '18 at 18:12
add a comment |
Another solution is to execute code via sequential executor nsynjs.
If underlying function is promisified
nsynjs will evaluate all promises sequentially, and put promise result into data
property:
function synchronousCode() {
var getURL = function(url) {
return window.fetch(url).data.text().data;
};
var url = 'https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/jquery.min.js';
console.log('received bytes:',getURL(url).length);
};
nsynjs.run(synchronousCode,{},function(){
console.log('synchronousCode done');
});
<script src="https://rawgit.com/amaksr/nsynjs/master/nsynjs.js"></script>
If underlying function is not promisified
Step 1. Wrap function with callback into nsynjs-aware wrapper (if it has promisified version, you can skip this test):
var ajaxGet = function (ctx,url) {
var res = {};
var ex;
$.ajax(url)
.done(function (data) {
res.data = data;
})
.fail(function(e) {
ex = e;
})
.always(function() {
ctx.resume(ex);
});
return res;
};
ajaxGet.nsynjsHasCallback = true;
Step 2. Put synchronous logic into function:
function process() {
console.log('got data:', ajaxGet(nsynjsCtx, "data/file1.json").data);
}
Step 3. Run function in synchronous manner via nnsynjs:
nsynjs.run(process,this,function () {
console.log("synchronous function finished");
});
Nsynjs will evaluate all operators and expressions step-by-step, pausing execution in case if result of some slow function is not ready.
More examples here: https://github.com/amaksr/nsynjs/tree/master/examples
1
This is interesting. I like how it allows to code async calls the way you'd do it in other languages. But technically it's not real JavaScript?
– J Morris
Jun 16 '17 at 23:55
add a comment |
Another solution is to execute code via sequential executor nsynjs.
If underlying function is promisified
nsynjs will evaluate all promises sequentially, and put promise result into data
property:
function synchronousCode() {
var getURL = function(url) {
return window.fetch(url).data.text().data;
};
var url = 'https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/jquery.min.js';
console.log('received bytes:',getURL(url).length);
};
nsynjs.run(synchronousCode,{},function(){
console.log('synchronousCode done');
});
<script src="https://rawgit.com/amaksr/nsynjs/master/nsynjs.js"></script>
If underlying function is not promisified
Step 1. Wrap function with callback into nsynjs-aware wrapper (if it has promisified version, you can skip this test):
var ajaxGet = function (ctx,url) {
var res = {};
var ex;
$.ajax(url)
.done(function (data) {
res.data = data;
})
.fail(function(e) {
ex = e;
})
.always(function() {
ctx.resume(ex);
});
return res;
};
ajaxGet.nsynjsHasCallback = true;
Step 2. Put synchronous logic into function:
function process() {
console.log('got data:', ajaxGet(nsynjsCtx, "data/file1.json").data);
}
Step 3. Run function in synchronous manner via nnsynjs:
nsynjs.run(process,this,function () {
console.log("synchronous function finished");
});
Nsynjs will evaluate all operators and expressions step-by-step, pausing execution in case if result of some slow function is not ready.
More examples here: https://github.com/amaksr/nsynjs/tree/master/examples
1
This is interesting. I like how it allows to code async calls the way you'd do it in other languages. But technically it's not real JavaScript?
– J Morris
Jun 16 '17 at 23:55
add a comment |
Another solution is to execute code via sequential executor nsynjs.
If underlying function is promisified
nsynjs will evaluate all promises sequentially, and put promise result into data
property:
function synchronousCode() {
var getURL = function(url) {
return window.fetch(url).data.text().data;
};
var url = 'https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/jquery.min.js';
console.log('received bytes:',getURL(url).length);
};
nsynjs.run(synchronousCode,{},function(){
console.log('synchronousCode done');
});
<script src="https://rawgit.com/amaksr/nsynjs/master/nsynjs.js"></script>
If underlying function is not promisified
Step 1. Wrap function with callback into nsynjs-aware wrapper (if it has promisified version, you can skip this test):
var ajaxGet = function (ctx,url) {
var res = {};
var ex;
$.ajax(url)
.done(function (data) {
res.data = data;
})
.fail(function(e) {
ex = e;
})
.always(function() {
ctx.resume(ex);
});
return res;
};
ajaxGet.nsynjsHasCallback = true;
Step 2. Put synchronous logic into function:
function process() {
console.log('got data:', ajaxGet(nsynjsCtx, "data/file1.json").data);
}
Step 3. Run function in synchronous manner via nnsynjs:
nsynjs.run(process,this,function () {
console.log("synchronous function finished");
});
Nsynjs will evaluate all operators and expressions step-by-step, pausing execution in case if result of some slow function is not ready.
More examples here: https://github.com/amaksr/nsynjs/tree/master/examples
Another solution is to execute code via sequential executor nsynjs.
If underlying function is promisified
nsynjs will evaluate all promises sequentially, and put promise result into data
property:
function synchronousCode() {
var getURL = function(url) {
return window.fetch(url).data.text().data;
};
var url = 'https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/jquery.min.js';
console.log('received bytes:',getURL(url).length);
};
nsynjs.run(synchronousCode,{},function(){
console.log('synchronousCode done');
});
<script src="https://rawgit.com/amaksr/nsynjs/master/nsynjs.js"></script>
If underlying function is not promisified
Step 1. Wrap function with callback into nsynjs-aware wrapper (if it has promisified version, you can skip this test):
var ajaxGet = function (ctx,url) {
var res = {};
var ex;
$.ajax(url)
.done(function (data) {
res.data = data;
})
.fail(function(e) {
ex = e;
})
.always(function() {
ctx.resume(ex);
});
return res;
};
ajaxGet.nsynjsHasCallback = true;
Step 2. Put synchronous logic into function:
function process() {
console.log('got data:', ajaxGet(nsynjsCtx, "data/file1.json").data);
}
Step 3. Run function in synchronous manner via nnsynjs:
nsynjs.run(process,this,function () {
console.log("synchronous function finished");
});
Nsynjs will evaluate all operators and expressions step-by-step, pausing execution in case if result of some slow function is not ready.
More examples here: https://github.com/amaksr/nsynjs/tree/master/examples
function synchronousCode() {
var getURL = function(url) {
return window.fetch(url).data.text().data;
};
var url = 'https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/jquery.min.js';
console.log('received bytes:',getURL(url).length);
};
nsynjs.run(synchronousCode,{},function(){
console.log('synchronousCode done');
});
<script src="https://rawgit.com/amaksr/nsynjs/master/nsynjs.js"></script>
function synchronousCode() {
var getURL = function(url) {
return window.fetch(url).data.text().data;
};
var url = 'https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/jquery.min.js';
console.log('received bytes:',getURL(url).length);
};
nsynjs.run(synchronousCode,{},function(){
console.log('synchronousCode done');
});
<script src="https://rawgit.com/amaksr/nsynjs/master/nsynjs.js"></script>
edited Jul 4 '17 at 20:30
answered May 27 '17 at 2:47
amaksramaksr
5,06921015
5,06921015
1
This is interesting. I like how it allows to code async calls the way you'd do it in other languages. But technically it's not real JavaScript?
– J Morris
Jun 16 '17 at 23:55
add a comment |
1
This is interesting. I like how it allows to code async calls the way you'd do it in other languages. But technically it's not real JavaScript?
– J Morris
Jun 16 '17 at 23:55
1
1
This is interesting. I like how it allows to code async calls the way you'd do it in other languages. But technically it's not real JavaScript?
– J Morris
Jun 16 '17 at 23:55
This is interesting. I like how it allows to code async calls the way you'd do it in other languages. But technically it's not real JavaScript?
– J Morris
Jun 16 '17 at 23:55
add a comment |
It's a very common issue we face while struggling with the 'mysteries' of JavaScript. Let me try demystifying this mystery today.
Let's start with a simple JavaScript function:
function foo(){
// do something
return 'wohoo';
}
let bar = foo(); // bar is 'wohoo' here
That's a simple synchronous function call (where each line of code is 'finished with its job' before the next one in sequence), and the result is same as expected.
Now let's add a bit of twist, by introducing little delay in our function, so that all lines of code are not 'finished' in sequence. Thus, it will emulate the asynchronous behavior of function :
function foo(){
setTimeout( ()=>{
return 'wohoo';
}, 1000 )
}
let bar = foo() // bar is undefined here
So there you go, that delay just broke the functionality we expected! But what exactly happened ? Well, it's actually pretty logical if you look at the code. the function foo()
, upon execution, returns nothing (thus returned value is undefined
), but it does start a timer, which executes a function after 1s to return 'wohoo'. But as you can see, the value that's assigned to bar is the immediately returned stuff from foo(), not anything else that comes later.
So, how do we tackle this issue?
Let's ask our function for a PROMISE.
Promise is really about what it means : it means that the function guarantees you to provide with any output it gets in future. so let's see it in action for our little problem above :
function foo(){
return new Promise( (resolve, reject) => { // I want foo() to PROMISE me something
setTimeout ( function(){
// promise is RESOLVED , when execution reaches this line of code
resolve('wohoo')// After 1 second, RESOLVE the promise with value 'wohoo'
}, 1000 )
})
}
let bar ;
foo().then( res => {
bar = res;
console.log(bar) // will print 'wohoo'
});
Thus, the summary is - to tackle the asynchronous functions like ajax based calls etc., you can use a promise to resolve
the value (which you intend to return). Thus, in short you resolve value instead of returning, in asynchronous functions.
UPDATE (Promises with async/await)
Apart from using then/catch
to work with promises, there exists one more approach. The idea is to recognize an asynchronous function and then wait for the promises to resolve, before moving to the next line of code. It's still just the promises
under the hood, but with a different syntactical approach. To make things clearer, you can find a comparison below:
then/catch version:
function fetchUsers(){
let users = ;
getUsers()
.then(_users => users = _users)
.catch(err =>{
throw err
})
return users;
}
async/await version:
async function fetchUsers(){
try{
let users = await getUsers()
return users;
}
catch(err){
throw err;
}
}
is this still considered the best way to return a value from a promise or async/await?
– edwardsmarkf
Sep 26 '18 at 20:58
@edwardsmarkf Personally I don't think there's a best way as such. I use promises with then/catch , async/await as well as generators for async portions of my code. It largely depends on the context of usage.
– Anish K.
Oct 3 '18 at 16:12
add a comment |
It's a very common issue we face while struggling with the 'mysteries' of JavaScript. Let me try demystifying this mystery today.
Let's start with a simple JavaScript function:
function foo(){
// do something
return 'wohoo';
}
let bar = foo(); // bar is 'wohoo' here
That's a simple synchronous function call (where each line of code is 'finished with its job' before the next one in sequence), and the result is same as expected.
Now let's add a bit of twist, by introducing little delay in our function, so that all lines of code are not 'finished' in sequence. Thus, it will emulate the asynchronous behavior of function :
function foo(){
setTimeout( ()=>{
return 'wohoo';
}, 1000 )
}
let bar = foo() // bar is undefined here
So there you go, that delay just broke the functionality we expected! But what exactly happened ? Well, it's actually pretty logical if you look at the code. the function foo()
, upon execution, returns nothing (thus returned value is undefined
), but it does start a timer, which executes a function after 1s to return 'wohoo'. But as you can see, the value that's assigned to bar is the immediately returned stuff from foo(), not anything else that comes later.
So, how do we tackle this issue?
Let's ask our function for a PROMISE.
Promise is really about what it means : it means that the function guarantees you to provide with any output it gets in future. so let's see it in action for our little problem above :
function foo(){
return new Promise( (resolve, reject) => { // I want foo() to PROMISE me something
setTimeout ( function(){
// promise is RESOLVED , when execution reaches this line of code
resolve('wohoo')// After 1 second, RESOLVE the promise with value 'wohoo'
}, 1000 )
})
}
let bar ;
foo().then( res => {
bar = res;
console.log(bar) // will print 'wohoo'
});
Thus, the summary is - to tackle the asynchronous functions like ajax based calls etc., you can use a promise to resolve
the value (which you intend to return). Thus, in short you resolve value instead of returning, in asynchronous functions.
UPDATE (Promises with async/await)
Apart from using then/catch
to work with promises, there exists one more approach. The idea is to recognize an asynchronous function and then wait for the promises to resolve, before moving to the next line of code. It's still just the promises
under the hood, but with a different syntactical approach. To make things clearer, you can find a comparison below:
then/catch version:
function fetchUsers(){
let users = ;
getUsers()
.then(_users => users = _users)
.catch(err =>{
throw err
})
return users;
}
async/await version:
async function fetchUsers(){
try{
let users = await getUsers()
return users;
}
catch(err){
throw err;
}
}
is this still considered the best way to return a value from a promise or async/await?
– edwardsmarkf
Sep 26 '18 at 20:58
@edwardsmarkf Personally I don't think there's a best way as such. I use promises with then/catch , async/await as well as generators for async portions of my code. It largely depends on the context of usage.
– Anish K.
Oct 3 '18 at 16:12
add a comment |
It's a very common issue we face while struggling with the 'mysteries' of JavaScript. Let me try demystifying this mystery today.
Let's start with a simple JavaScript function:
function foo(){
// do something
return 'wohoo';
}
let bar = foo(); // bar is 'wohoo' here
That's a simple synchronous function call (where each line of code is 'finished with its job' before the next one in sequence), and the result is same as expected.
Now let's add a bit of twist, by introducing little delay in our function, so that all lines of code are not 'finished' in sequence. Thus, it will emulate the asynchronous behavior of function :
function foo(){
setTimeout( ()=>{
return 'wohoo';
}, 1000 )
}
let bar = foo() // bar is undefined here
So there you go, that delay just broke the functionality we expected! But what exactly happened ? Well, it's actually pretty logical if you look at the code. the function foo()
, upon execution, returns nothing (thus returned value is undefined
), but it does start a timer, which executes a function after 1s to return 'wohoo'. But as you can see, the value that's assigned to bar is the immediately returned stuff from foo(), not anything else that comes later.
So, how do we tackle this issue?
Let's ask our function for a PROMISE.
Promise is really about what it means : it means that the function guarantees you to provide with any output it gets in future. so let's see it in action for our little problem above :
function foo(){
return new Promise( (resolve, reject) => { // I want foo() to PROMISE me something
setTimeout ( function(){
// promise is RESOLVED , when execution reaches this line of code
resolve('wohoo')// After 1 second, RESOLVE the promise with value 'wohoo'
}, 1000 )
})
}
let bar ;
foo().then( res => {
bar = res;
console.log(bar) // will print 'wohoo'
});
Thus, the summary is - to tackle the asynchronous functions like ajax based calls etc., you can use a promise to resolve
the value (which you intend to return). Thus, in short you resolve value instead of returning, in asynchronous functions.
UPDATE (Promises with async/await)
Apart from using then/catch
to work with promises, there exists one more approach. The idea is to recognize an asynchronous function and then wait for the promises to resolve, before moving to the next line of code. It's still just the promises
under the hood, but with a different syntactical approach. To make things clearer, you can find a comparison below:
then/catch version:
function fetchUsers(){
let users = ;
getUsers()
.then(_users => users = _users)
.catch(err =>{
throw err
})
return users;
}
async/await version:
async function fetchUsers(){
try{
let users = await getUsers()
return users;
}
catch(err){
throw err;
}
}
It's a very common issue we face while struggling with the 'mysteries' of JavaScript. Let me try demystifying this mystery today.
Let's start with a simple JavaScript function:
function foo(){
// do something
return 'wohoo';
}
let bar = foo(); // bar is 'wohoo' here
That's a simple synchronous function call (where each line of code is 'finished with its job' before the next one in sequence), and the result is same as expected.
Now let's add a bit of twist, by introducing little delay in our function, so that all lines of code are not 'finished' in sequence. Thus, it will emulate the asynchronous behavior of function :
function foo(){
setTimeout( ()=>{
return 'wohoo';
}, 1000 )
}
let bar = foo() // bar is undefined here
So there you go, that delay just broke the functionality we expected! But what exactly happened ? Well, it's actually pretty logical if you look at the code. the function foo()
, upon execution, returns nothing (thus returned value is undefined
), but it does start a timer, which executes a function after 1s to return 'wohoo'. But as you can see, the value that's assigned to bar is the immediately returned stuff from foo(), not anything else that comes later.
So, how do we tackle this issue?
Let's ask our function for a PROMISE.
Promise is really about what it means : it means that the function guarantees you to provide with any output it gets in future. so let's see it in action for our little problem above :
function foo(){
return new Promise( (resolve, reject) => { // I want foo() to PROMISE me something
setTimeout ( function(){
// promise is RESOLVED , when execution reaches this line of code
resolve('wohoo')// After 1 second, RESOLVE the promise with value 'wohoo'
}, 1000 )
})
}
let bar ;
foo().then( res => {
bar = res;
console.log(bar) // will print 'wohoo'
});
Thus, the summary is - to tackle the asynchronous functions like ajax based calls etc., you can use a promise to resolve
the value (which you intend to return). Thus, in short you resolve value instead of returning, in asynchronous functions.
UPDATE (Promises with async/await)
Apart from using then/catch
to work with promises, there exists one more approach. The idea is to recognize an asynchronous function and then wait for the promises to resolve, before moving to the next line of code. It's still just the promises
under the hood, but with a different syntactical approach. To make things clearer, you can find a comparison below:
then/catch version:
function fetchUsers(){
let users = ;
getUsers()
.then(_users => users = _users)
.catch(err =>{
throw err
})
return users;
}
async/await version:
async function fetchUsers(){
try{
let users = await getUsers()
return users;
}
catch(err){
throw err;
}
}
edited Oct 9 '18 at 17:33
answered Oct 31 '17 at 20:12
Anish K.Anish K.
6551017
6551017
is this still considered the best way to return a value from a promise or async/await?
– edwardsmarkf
Sep 26 '18 at 20:58
@edwardsmarkf Personally I don't think there's a best way as such. I use promises with then/catch , async/await as well as generators for async portions of my code. It largely depends on the context of usage.
– Anish K.
Oct 3 '18 at 16:12
add a comment |
is this still considered the best way to return a value from a promise or async/await?
– edwardsmarkf
Sep 26 '18 at 20:58
@edwardsmarkf Personally I don't think there's a best way as such. I use promises with then/catch , async/await as well as generators for async portions of my code. It largely depends on the context of usage.
– Anish K.
Oct 3 '18 at 16:12
is this still considered the best way to return a value from a promise or async/await?
– edwardsmarkf
Sep 26 '18 at 20:58
is this still considered the best way to return a value from a promise or async/await?
– edwardsmarkf
Sep 26 '18 at 20:58
@edwardsmarkf Personally I don't think there's a best way as such. I use promises with then/catch , async/await as well as generators for async portions of my code. It largely depends on the context of usage.
– Anish K.
Oct 3 '18 at 16:12
@edwardsmarkf Personally I don't think there's a best way as such. I use promises with then/catch , async/await as well as generators for async portions of my code. It largely depends on the context of usage.
– Anish K.
Oct 3 '18 at 16:12
add a comment |
Here are some approaches to work with asynchronous requests:
- Browser Promise object
Q - A promise library for JavaScript- A+ Promises.js
- jQuery deferred
- XMLHttpRequest API
- Using callback concept - As implementation in first answer
Example: jQuery deferred implementation to work with multiple requests
var App = App || {};
App = {
getDataFromServer: function(){
var self = this,
deferred = $.Deferred(),
requests = ;
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/1'));
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/2'));
$.when.apply(jQuery, requests).done(function(xhrResponse) {
return deferred.resolve(xhrResponse.result);
});
return deferred;
},
init: function(){
this.getDataFromServer().done(_.bind(function(resp1, resp2) {
// Do the operations which you wanted to do when you
// get a response from Ajax, for example, log response.
}, this));
}
};
App.init();
add a comment |
Here are some approaches to work with asynchronous requests:
- Browser Promise object
Q - A promise library for JavaScript- A+ Promises.js
- jQuery deferred
- XMLHttpRequest API
- Using callback concept - As implementation in first answer
Example: jQuery deferred implementation to work with multiple requests
var App = App || {};
App = {
getDataFromServer: function(){
var self = this,
deferred = $.Deferred(),
requests = ;
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/1'));
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/2'));
$.when.apply(jQuery, requests).done(function(xhrResponse) {
return deferred.resolve(xhrResponse.result);
});
return deferred;
},
init: function(){
this.getDataFromServer().done(_.bind(function(resp1, resp2) {
// Do the operations which you wanted to do when you
// get a response from Ajax, for example, log response.
}, this));
}
};
App.init();
add a comment |
Here are some approaches to work with asynchronous requests:
- Browser Promise object
Q - A promise library for JavaScript- A+ Promises.js
- jQuery deferred
- XMLHttpRequest API
- Using callback concept - As implementation in first answer
Example: jQuery deferred implementation to work with multiple requests
var App = App || {};
App = {
getDataFromServer: function(){
var self = this,
deferred = $.Deferred(),
requests = ;
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/1'));
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/2'));
$.when.apply(jQuery, requests).done(function(xhrResponse) {
return deferred.resolve(xhrResponse.result);
});
return deferred;
},
init: function(){
this.getDataFromServer().done(_.bind(function(resp1, resp2) {
// Do the operations which you wanted to do when you
// get a response from Ajax, for example, log response.
}, this));
}
};
App.init();
Here are some approaches to work with asynchronous requests:
- Browser Promise object
Q - A promise library for JavaScript- A+ Promises.js
- jQuery deferred
- XMLHttpRequest API
- Using callback concept - As implementation in first answer
Example: jQuery deferred implementation to work with multiple requests
var App = App || {};
App = {
getDataFromServer: function(){
var self = this,
deferred = $.Deferred(),
requests = ;
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/1'));
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/2'));
$.when.apply(jQuery, requests).done(function(xhrResponse) {
return deferred.resolve(xhrResponse.result);
});
return deferred;
},
init: function(){
this.getDataFromServer().done(_.bind(function(resp1, resp2) {
// Do the operations which you wanted to do when you
// get a response from Ajax, for example, log response.
}, this));
}
};
App.init();
var App = App || {};
App = {
getDataFromServer: function(){
var self = this,
deferred = $.Deferred(),
requests = ;
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/1'));
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/2'));
$.when.apply(jQuery, requests).done(function(xhrResponse) {
return deferred.resolve(xhrResponse.result);
});
return deferred;
},
init: function(){
this.getDataFromServer().done(_.bind(function(resp1, resp2) {
// Do the operations which you wanted to do when you
// get a response from Ajax, for example, log response.
}, this));
}
};
App.init();
var App = App || {};
App = {
getDataFromServer: function(){
var self = this,
deferred = $.Deferred(),
requests = ;
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/1'));
requests.push($.getJSON('request/ajax/url/2'));
$.when.apply(jQuery, requests).done(function(xhrResponse) {
return deferred.resolve(xhrResponse.result);
});
return deferred;
},
init: function(){
this.getDataFromServer().done(_.bind(function(resp1, resp2) {
// Do the operations which you wanted to do when you
// get a response from Ajax, for example, log response.
}, this));
}
};
App.init();
edited Jun 22 '17 at 9:31
answered Aug 13 '16 at 9:36
Mohan DereMohan Dere
2,46411014
2,46411014
add a comment |
add a comment |
ECMAScript 6 has 'generators' which allow you to easily program in an asynchronous style.
function* myGenerator() {
const callback = yield;
let [response] = yield $.ajax("https://stackoverflow.com", {complete: callback});
console.log("response is:", response);
// examples of other things you can do
yield setTimeout(callback, 1000);
console.log("it delayed for 1000ms");
while (response.statusText === "error") {
[response] = yield* anotherGenerator();
}
}
To run the above code you do this:
const gen = myGenerator(); // Create generator
gen.next(); // Start it
gen.next((...args) => gen.next([...args])); // Set its callback function
If you need to target browsers that don't support ES6 you can run the code through Babel or closure-compiler to generate ECMAScript 5.
The callback ...args
are wrapped in an array and destructured when you read them so that the pattern can cope with callbacks that have multiple arguments. For example with node fs:
const [err, data] = yield fs.readFile(filePath, "utf-8", callback);
4
I would be interested to know why this is down-voted. It seems a good simple answer that has not been previously given.
– James
Feb 17 '18 at 17:49
People probably just assume answers at the end are repeats or spam.
– whackamadoodle3000
Mar 1 '18 at 1:08
add a comment |
ECMAScript 6 has 'generators' which allow you to easily program in an asynchronous style.
function* myGenerator() {
const callback = yield;
let [response] = yield $.ajax("https://stackoverflow.com", {complete: callback});
console.log("response is:", response);
// examples of other things you can do
yield setTimeout(callback, 1000);
console.log("it delayed for 1000ms");
while (response.statusText === "error") {
[response] = yield* anotherGenerator();
}
}
To run the above code you do this:
const gen = myGenerator(); // Create generator
gen.next(); // Start it
gen.next((...args) => gen.next([...args])); // Set its callback function
If you need to target browsers that don't support ES6 you can run the code through Babel or closure-compiler to generate ECMAScript 5.
The callback ...args
are wrapped in an array and destructured when you read them so that the pattern can cope with callbacks that have multiple arguments. For example with node fs:
const [err, data] = yield fs.readFile(filePath, "utf-8", callback);
4
I would be interested to know why this is down-voted. It seems a good simple answer that has not been previously given.
– James
Feb 17 '18 at 17:49
People probably just assume answers at the end are repeats or spam.
– whackamadoodle3000
Mar 1 '18 at 1:08
add a comment |
ECMAScript 6 has 'generators' which allow you to easily program in an asynchronous style.
function* myGenerator() {
const callback = yield;
let [response] = yield $.ajax("https://stackoverflow.com", {complete: callback});
console.log("response is:", response);
// examples of other things you can do
yield setTimeout(callback, 1000);
console.log("it delayed for 1000ms");
while (response.statusText === "error") {
[response] = yield* anotherGenerator();
}
}
To run the above code you do this:
const gen = myGenerator(); // Create generator
gen.next(); // Start it
gen.next((...args) => gen.next([...args])); // Set its callback function
If you need to target browsers that don't support ES6 you can run the code through Babel or closure-compiler to generate ECMAScript 5.
The callback ...args
are wrapped in an array and destructured when you read them so that the pattern can cope with callbacks that have multiple arguments. For example with node fs:
const [err, data] = yield fs.readFile(filePath, "utf-8", callback);
ECMAScript 6 has 'generators' which allow you to easily program in an asynchronous style.
function* myGenerator() {
const callback = yield;
let [response] = yield $.ajax("https://stackoverflow.com", {complete: callback});
console.log("response is:", response);
// examples of other things you can do
yield setTimeout(callback, 1000);
console.log("it delayed for 1000ms");
while (response.statusText === "error") {
[response] = yield* anotherGenerator();
}
}
To run the above code you do this:
const gen = myGenerator(); // Create generator
gen.next(); // Start it
gen.next((...args) => gen.next([...args])); // Set its callback function
If you need to target browsers that don't support ES6 you can run the code through Babel or closure-compiler to generate ECMAScript 5.
The callback ...args
are wrapped in an array and destructured when you read them so that the pattern can cope with callbacks that have multiple arguments. For example with node fs:
const [err, data] = yield fs.readFile(filePath, "utf-8", callback);
edited Jul 31 '18 at 10:35
answered Feb 17 '18 at 15:26
JamesJames
3,0111728
3,0111728
4
I would be interested to know why this is down-voted. It seems a good simple answer that has not been previously given.
– James
Feb 17 '18 at 17:49
People probably just assume answers at the end are repeats or spam.
– whackamadoodle3000
Mar 1 '18 at 1:08
add a comment |
4
I would be interested to know why this is down-voted. It seems a good simple answer that has not been previously given.
– James
Feb 17 '18 at 17:49
People probably just assume answers at the end are repeats or spam.
– whackamadoodle3000
Mar 1 '18 at 1:08
4
4
I would be interested to know why this is down-voted. It seems a good simple answer that has not been previously given.
– James
Feb 17 '18 at 17:49
I would be interested to know why this is down-voted. It seems a good simple answer that has not been previously given.
– James
Feb 17 '18 at 17:49
People probably just assume answers at the end are repeats or spam.
– whackamadoodle3000
Mar 1 '18 at 1:08
People probably just assume answers at the end are repeats or spam.
– whackamadoodle3000
Mar 1 '18 at 1:08
add a comment |
Use a callback()
function inside the foo()
success.
Try in this way. It is simple and easy to understand.
var lat = "";
var lon = "";
function callback(data) {
lat = data.lat;
lon = data.lon;
}
function getLoc() {
var url = "http://ip-api.com/json"
$.getJSON(url, function(data) {
callback(data);
});
}
getLoc();
add a comment |
Use a callback()
function inside the foo()
success.
Try in this way. It is simple and easy to understand.
var lat = "";
var lon = "";
function callback(data) {
lat = data.lat;
lon = data.lon;
}
function getLoc() {
var url = "http://ip-api.com/json"
$.getJSON(url, function(data) {
callback(data);
});
}
getLoc();
add a comment |
Use a callback()
function inside the foo()
success.
Try in this way. It is simple and easy to understand.
var lat = "";
var lon = "";
function callback(data) {
lat = data.lat;
lon = data.lon;
}
function getLoc() {
var url = "http://ip-api.com/json"
$.getJSON(url, function(data) {
callback(data);
});
}
getLoc();
Use a callback()
function inside the foo()
success.
Try in this way. It is simple and easy to understand.
var lat = "";
var lon = "";
function callback(data) {
lat = data.lat;
lon = data.lon;
}
function getLoc() {
var url = "http://ip-api.com/json"
$.getJSON(url, function(data) {
callback(data);
});
}
getLoc();
edited Nov 17 '17 at 9:15
Alex Weitz
1,50521527
1,50521527
answered Apr 24 '17 at 8:09
Mahfuzur RahmanMahfuzur Rahman
810818
810818
add a comment |
add a comment |
Short answer: Your foo()
method returns immediately, while the $ajax()
call executes asynchronously after the function returns. The problem is then how or where to store the results retrieved by the async call once it returns.
Several solutions have been given in this thread. Perhaps the easiest way is to pass an object to the foo()
method, and to store the results in a member of that object after the async call completes.
function foo(result) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response; // Store the async result
}
});
}
var result = { response: null }; // Object to hold the async result
foo(result); // Returns before the async completes
Note that the call to foo()
will still return nothing useful. However, the result of the async call will now be stored in result.response
.
12
While this works, it's not really better than assigning to a global variable.
– Felix Kling
Sep 23 '15 at 22:53
add a comment |
Short answer: Your foo()
method returns immediately, while the $ajax()
call executes asynchronously after the function returns. The problem is then how or where to store the results retrieved by the async call once it returns.
Several solutions have been given in this thread. Perhaps the easiest way is to pass an object to the foo()
method, and to store the results in a member of that object after the async call completes.
function foo(result) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response; // Store the async result
}
});
}
var result = { response: null }; // Object to hold the async result
foo(result); // Returns before the async completes
Note that the call to foo()
will still return nothing useful. However, the result of the async call will now be stored in result.response
.
12
While this works, it's not really better than assigning to a global variable.
– Felix Kling
Sep 23 '15 at 22:53
add a comment |
Short answer: Your foo()
method returns immediately, while the $ajax()
call executes asynchronously after the function returns. The problem is then how or where to store the results retrieved by the async call once it returns.
Several solutions have been given in this thread. Perhaps the easiest way is to pass an object to the foo()
method, and to store the results in a member of that object after the async call completes.
function foo(result) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response; // Store the async result
}
});
}
var result = { response: null }; // Object to hold the async result
foo(result); // Returns before the async completes
Note that the call to foo()
will still return nothing useful. However, the result of the async call will now be stored in result.response
.
Short answer: Your foo()
method returns immediately, while the $ajax()
call executes asynchronously after the function returns. The problem is then how or where to store the results retrieved by the async call once it returns.
Several solutions have been given in this thread. Perhaps the easiest way is to pass an object to the foo()
method, and to store the results in a member of that object after the async call completes.
function foo(result) {
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
result.response = response; // Store the async result
}
});
}
var result = { response: null }; // Object to hold the async result
foo(result); // Returns before the async completes
Note that the call to foo()
will still return nothing useful. However, the result of the async call will now be stored in result.response
.
answered Sep 23 '15 at 22:52
David R TribbleDavid R Tribble
8,54823248
8,54823248
12
While this works, it's not really better than assigning to a global variable.
– Felix Kling
Sep 23 '15 at 22:53
add a comment |
12
While this works, it's not really better than assigning to a global variable.
– Felix Kling
Sep 23 '15 at 22:53
12
12
While this works, it's not really better than assigning to a global variable.
– Felix Kling
Sep 23 '15 at 22:53
While this works, it's not really better than assigning to a global variable.
– Felix Kling
Sep 23 '15 at 22:53
add a comment |
Of course there are many approaches like synchronous request, promise, but from my experience I think you should use the callback approach. It's natural to asynchronous behavior of Javascript.
So, your code snippet can be rewrite a little different:
function foo() {
var result;
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
myCallback(response);
}
});
return result;
}
function myCallback(response) {
// Does something.
}
4
There's nothing inherently asynchronous about callbacks or JavaScript.
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:48
add a comment |
Of course there are many approaches like synchronous request, promise, but from my experience I think you should use the callback approach. It's natural to asynchronous behavior of Javascript.
So, your code snippet can be rewrite a little different:
function foo() {
var result;
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
myCallback(response);
}
});
return result;
}
function myCallback(response) {
// Does something.
}
4
There's nothing inherently asynchronous about callbacks or JavaScript.
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:48
add a comment |
Of course there are many approaches like synchronous request, promise, but from my experience I think you should use the callback approach. It's natural to asynchronous behavior of Javascript.
So, your code snippet can be rewrite a little different:
function foo() {
var result;
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
myCallback(response);
}
});
return result;
}
function myCallback(response) {
// Does something.
}
Of course there are many approaches like synchronous request, promise, but from my experience I think you should use the callback approach. It's natural to asynchronous behavior of Javascript.
So, your code snippet can be rewrite a little different:
function foo() {
var result;
$.ajax({
url: '...',
success: function(response) {
myCallback(response);
}
});
return result;
}
function myCallback(response) {
// Does something.
}
edited Mar 7 '18 at 14:23
Michał Perłakowski
42k1699115
42k1699115
answered Jul 5 '17 at 20:28
Khoa BuiKhoa Bui
328413
328413
4
There's nothing inherently asynchronous about callbacks or JavaScript.
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:48
add a comment |
4
There's nothing inherently asynchronous about callbacks or JavaScript.
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:48
4
4
There's nothing inherently asynchronous about callbacks or JavaScript.
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:48
There's nothing inherently asynchronous about callbacks or JavaScript.
– Aluan Haddad
Mar 18 '18 at 19:48
add a comment |
The question was:
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
which CAN be interpreted as:
How to make asynchronous code look synchronous?
The solution will be to avoid callbacks, and use a combination of Promises and async/await.
I would like to give an example for a Ajax request.
(Although it can be written in Javascript, I prefer to write it in Python, and compile it to Javascript using Transcrypt. It will be clear enough.)
Lets first enable JQuery usage, to have $
available as S
:
__pragma__ ('alias', 'S', '$')
Define a function which returns a Promise, in this case an Ajax call:
def read(url: str):
deferred = S.Deferred()
S.ajax({'type': "POST", 'url': url, 'data': { },
'success': lambda d: deferred.resolve(d),
'error': lambda e: deferred.reject(e)
})
return deferred.promise()
Use the asynchronous code as if it were synchronous:
async def readALot():
try:
result1 = await read("url_1")
result2 = await read("url_2")
except Exception:
console.warn("Reading a lot failed")
add a comment |
The question was:
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
which CAN be interpreted as:
How to make asynchronous code look synchronous?
The solution will be to avoid callbacks, and use a combination of Promises and async/await.
I would like to give an example for a Ajax request.
(Although it can be written in Javascript, I prefer to write it in Python, and compile it to Javascript using Transcrypt. It will be clear enough.)
Lets first enable JQuery usage, to have $
available as S
:
__pragma__ ('alias', 'S', '$')
Define a function which returns a Promise, in this case an Ajax call:
def read(url: str):
deferred = S.Deferred()
S.ajax({'type': "POST", 'url': url, 'data': { },
'success': lambda d: deferred.resolve(d),
'error': lambda e: deferred.reject(e)
})
return deferred.promise()
Use the asynchronous code as if it were synchronous:
async def readALot():
try:
result1 = await read("url_1")
result2 = await read("url_2")
except Exception:
console.warn("Reading a lot failed")
add a comment |
The question was:
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
which CAN be interpreted as:
How to make asynchronous code look synchronous?
The solution will be to avoid callbacks, and use a combination of Promises and async/await.
I would like to give an example for a Ajax request.
(Although it can be written in Javascript, I prefer to write it in Python, and compile it to Javascript using Transcrypt. It will be clear enough.)
Lets first enable JQuery usage, to have $
available as S
:
__pragma__ ('alias', 'S', '$')
Define a function which returns a Promise, in this case an Ajax call:
def read(url: str):
deferred = S.Deferred()
S.ajax({'type': "POST", 'url': url, 'data': { },
'success': lambda d: deferred.resolve(d),
'error': lambda e: deferred.reject(e)
})
return deferred.promise()
Use the asynchronous code as if it were synchronous:
async def readALot():
try:
result1 = await read("url_1")
result2 = await read("url_2")
except Exception:
console.warn("Reading a lot failed")
The question was:
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
which CAN be interpreted as:
How to make asynchronous code look synchronous?
The solution will be to avoid callbacks, and use a combination of Promises and async/await.
I would like to give an example for a Ajax request.
(Although it can be written in Javascript, I prefer to write it in Python, and compile it to Javascript using Transcrypt. It will be clear enough.)
Lets first enable JQuery usage, to have $
available as S
:
__pragma__ ('alias', 'S', '$')
Define a function which returns a Promise, in this case an Ajax call:
def read(url: str):
deferred = S.Deferred()
S.ajax({'type': "POST", 'url': url, 'data': { },
'success': lambda d: deferred.resolve(d),
'error': lambda e: deferred.reject(e)
})
return deferred.promise()
Use the asynchronous code as if it were synchronous:
async def readALot():
try:
result1 = await read("url_1")
result2 = await read("url_2")
except Exception:
console.warn("Reading a lot failed")
edited May 24 '18 at 8:36
answered Jan 13 '18 at 19:13
Pieter Jan BonestrooPieter Jan Bonestroo
27128
27128
add a comment |
add a comment |
We find ourselves in a universe which appears to progress along a dimension we call "time". We don't really understand what time is, but we have developed abstractions and vocabulary that let us reason and talk about it: "past", "present", "future", "before", "after".
The computer systems we build--more and more--have time as an important dimension. Certain things are set up to happen in the future. Then other things need to happen after those first things eventually occur. This is the basic notion called "asynchronicity". In our increasingly networked world, the most common case of asynchronicity is waiting for some remote system to respond to some request.
Consider an example. You call the milkman and order some milk. When it comes, you want to put it in your coffee. You can't put the milk in your coffee right now, because it is not here yet. You have to wait for it to come before putting it in your coffee. In other words, the following won't work:
var milk = order_milk();
put_in_coffee(milk);
Because JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for order_milk
to finish before it executes put_in_coffee
. In other words, it does not know that order_milk
is asynchronous--is something that is not going to result in milk until some future time. JS, and other declarative languages execute one statement after another without waiting.
The classic JS approach to this problem, taking advantage of the fact that JS supports functions as first-class objects which can be passed around, is to pass a function as a parameter to the asynchronous request, which it will then invoke when it has completed its task sometime in the future. That is the "callback" approach. It looks like this:
order_milk(put_in_coffee);
order_milk
kicks off, orders the milk, then, when and only when it arrives, it invokes put_in_coffee
.
The problem with this callback approach is that it pollutes the normal semantics of a function reporting its result with return
; instead, functions must not reports their results by calling a callback given as a parameter. Also, this approach can rapidly become unwieldy when dealing with longer sequences of events. For example, let's say that I want to wait for the milk to be put in the coffee, and then and only then perform a third step, namely drinking the coffee. I end up needing to write something like this:
order_milk(function(milk) { put_in_coffee(milk, drink_coffee); }
where I am passing to put_in_coffee
both the milk to put in it, and also the action (drink_coffee
) to execute once the milk has been put in. Such code becomes hard to write, and read, and debug.
In this case, we could rewrite the code in the question as:
var answer;
$.ajax('/foo.json') . done(function(response) {
callback(response.data);
});
function callback(data) {
console.log(data);
}
Enter promises
This was the motivation for the notion of a "promise", which is a particular type of value which represents a future or asynchronous outcome of some sort. It can represent something that already happened, or that is going to happen in the future, or might never happen at all. Promises have a single method, named then
, to which you pass an action to be executed when the outcome the promise represents has been realized.
In the case of our milk and coffee, we design order_milk
to return a promise for the milk arriving, then specify put_in_coffee
as a then
action, as follows:
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee)
One advantage of this is that we can string these together to create sequences of future occurrences ("chaining"):
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee) . then(drink_coffee)
Let's apply promises to your particular problem. We will wrap our request logic inside a function, which returns a promise:
function get_data() {
return $.ajax('/foo.json');
}
Actually, all we've done is added a return
to the call to $.ajax
. This works because jQuery's $.ajax
already returns a kind of promise-like thing. (In practice, without getting into details, we would prefer to wrap this call so as for return a real promise, or use some alternative to $.ajax
that does so.) Now, if we want to load the file and wait for it to finish and then do something, we can simply say
get_data() . then(do_something)
for instance,
get_data() .
then(function(data) { console.log(data); });
When using promises, we end up passing lots of functions into then
, so it's often helpful to use the more compact ES6-style arrow functions:
get_data() .
then(data => console.log(data));
The async
keyword
But there's still something vaguely dissatisfying about having to write code one way if synchronous and a quite different way if asynchronous. For synchronous, we write
a();
b();
but if a
is asynchronous, with promises we have to write
a() . then(b);
Above, we said, "JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for the first call to finish before it executes the second". Wouldn't it be nice if there was some way to tell JS that? It turns out that there is--the await
keyword, used inside a special type of function called an "async" function. This feature is part of the upcoming version of ES but is already available in transpilers such as Babel given the right presets. This allows us to simply write
async function morning_routine() {
var milk = await order_milk();
var coffee = await put_in_coffee(milk);
await drink(coffee);
}
In your case, you would be able to write something like
async function foo() {
data = await get_data();
console.log(data);
}
add a comment |
We find ourselves in a universe which appears to progress along a dimension we call "time". We don't really understand what time is, but we have developed abstractions and vocabulary that let us reason and talk about it: "past", "present", "future", "before", "after".
The computer systems we build--more and more--have time as an important dimension. Certain things are set up to happen in the future. Then other things need to happen after those first things eventually occur. This is the basic notion called "asynchronicity". In our increasingly networked world, the most common case of asynchronicity is waiting for some remote system to respond to some request.
Consider an example. You call the milkman and order some milk. When it comes, you want to put it in your coffee. You can't put the milk in your coffee right now, because it is not here yet. You have to wait for it to come before putting it in your coffee. In other words, the following won't work:
var milk = order_milk();
put_in_coffee(milk);
Because JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for order_milk
to finish before it executes put_in_coffee
. In other words, it does not know that order_milk
is asynchronous--is something that is not going to result in milk until some future time. JS, and other declarative languages execute one statement after another without waiting.
The classic JS approach to this problem, taking advantage of the fact that JS supports functions as first-class objects which can be passed around, is to pass a function as a parameter to the asynchronous request, which it will then invoke when it has completed its task sometime in the future. That is the "callback" approach. It looks like this:
order_milk(put_in_coffee);
order_milk
kicks off, orders the milk, then, when and only when it arrives, it invokes put_in_coffee
.
The problem with this callback approach is that it pollutes the normal semantics of a function reporting its result with return
; instead, functions must not reports their results by calling a callback given as a parameter. Also, this approach can rapidly become unwieldy when dealing with longer sequences of events. For example, let's say that I want to wait for the milk to be put in the coffee, and then and only then perform a third step, namely drinking the coffee. I end up needing to write something like this:
order_milk(function(milk) { put_in_coffee(milk, drink_coffee); }
where I am passing to put_in_coffee
both the milk to put in it, and also the action (drink_coffee
) to execute once the milk has been put in. Such code becomes hard to write, and read, and debug.
In this case, we could rewrite the code in the question as:
var answer;
$.ajax('/foo.json') . done(function(response) {
callback(response.data);
});
function callback(data) {
console.log(data);
}
Enter promises
This was the motivation for the notion of a "promise", which is a particular type of value which represents a future or asynchronous outcome of some sort. It can represent something that already happened, or that is going to happen in the future, or might never happen at all. Promises have a single method, named then
, to which you pass an action to be executed when the outcome the promise represents has been realized.
In the case of our milk and coffee, we design order_milk
to return a promise for the milk arriving, then specify put_in_coffee
as a then
action, as follows:
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee)
One advantage of this is that we can string these together to create sequences of future occurrences ("chaining"):
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee) . then(drink_coffee)
Let's apply promises to your particular problem. We will wrap our request logic inside a function, which returns a promise:
function get_data() {
return $.ajax('/foo.json');
}
Actually, all we've done is added a return
to the call to $.ajax
. This works because jQuery's $.ajax
already returns a kind of promise-like thing. (In practice, without getting into details, we would prefer to wrap this call so as for return a real promise, or use some alternative to $.ajax
that does so.) Now, if we want to load the file and wait for it to finish and then do something, we can simply say
get_data() . then(do_something)
for instance,
get_data() .
then(function(data) { console.log(data); });
When using promises, we end up passing lots of functions into then
, so it's often helpful to use the more compact ES6-style arrow functions:
get_data() .
then(data => console.log(data));
The async
keyword
But there's still something vaguely dissatisfying about having to write code one way if synchronous and a quite different way if asynchronous. For synchronous, we write
a();
b();
but if a
is asynchronous, with promises we have to write
a() . then(b);
Above, we said, "JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for the first call to finish before it executes the second". Wouldn't it be nice if there was some way to tell JS that? It turns out that there is--the await
keyword, used inside a special type of function called an "async" function. This feature is part of the upcoming version of ES but is already available in transpilers such as Babel given the right presets. This allows us to simply write
async function morning_routine() {
var milk = await order_milk();
var coffee = await put_in_coffee(milk);
await drink(coffee);
}
In your case, you would be able to write something like
async function foo() {
data = await get_data();
console.log(data);
}
add a comment |
We find ourselves in a universe which appears to progress along a dimension we call "time". We don't really understand what time is, but we have developed abstractions and vocabulary that let us reason and talk about it: "past", "present", "future", "before", "after".
The computer systems we build--more and more--have time as an important dimension. Certain things are set up to happen in the future. Then other things need to happen after those first things eventually occur. This is the basic notion called "asynchronicity". In our increasingly networked world, the most common case of asynchronicity is waiting for some remote system to respond to some request.
Consider an example. You call the milkman and order some milk. When it comes, you want to put it in your coffee. You can't put the milk in your coffee right now, because it is not here yet. You have to wait for it to come before putting it in your coffee. In other words, the following won't work:
var milk = order_milk();
put_in_coffee(milk);
Because JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for order_milk
to finish before it executes put_in_coffee
. In other words, it does not know that order_milk
is asynchronous--is something that is not going to result in milk until some future time. JS, and other declarative languages execute one statement after another without waiting.
The classic JS approach to this problem, taking advantage of the fact that JS supports functions as first-class objects which can be passed around, is to pass a function as a parameter to the asynchronous request, which it will then invoke when it has completed its task sometime in the future. That is the "callback" approach. It looks like this:
order_milk(put_in_coffee);
order_milk
kicks off, orders the milk, then, when and only when it arrives, it invokes put_in_coffee
.
The problem with this callback approach is that it pollutes the normal semantics of a function reporting its result with return
; instead, functions must not reports their results by calling a callback given as a parameter. Also, this approach can rapidly become unwieldy when dealing with longer sequences of events. For example, let's say that I want to wait for the milk to be put in the coffee, and then and only then perform a third step, namely drinking the coffee. I end up needing to write something like this:
order_milk(function(milk) { put_in_coffee(milk, drink_coffee); }
where I am passing to put_in_coffee
both the milk to put in it, and also the action (drink_coffee
) to execute once the milk has been put in. Such code becomes hard to write, and read, and debug.
In this case, we could rewrite the code in the question as:
var answer;
$.ajax('/foo.json') . done(function(response) {
callback(response.data);
});
function callback(data) {
console.log(data);
}
Enter promises
This was the motivation for the notion of a "promise", which is a particular type of value which represents a future or asynchronous outcome of some sort. It can represent something that already happened, or that is going to happen in the future, or might never happen at all. Promises have a single method, named then
, to which you pass an action to be executed when the outcome the promise represents has been realized.
In the case of our milk and coffee, we design order_milk
to return a promise for the milk arriving, then specify put_in_coffee
as a then
action, as follows:
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee)
One advantage of this is that we can string these together to create sequences of future occurrences ("chaining"):
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee) . then(drink_coffee)
Let's apply promises to your particular problem. We will wrap our request logic inside a function, which returns a promise:
function get_data() {
return $.ajax('/foo.json');
}
Actually, all we've done is added a return
to the call to $.ajax
. This works because jQuery's $.ajax
already returns a kind of promise-like thing. (In practice, without getting into details, we would prefer to wrap this call so as for return a real promise, or use some alternative to $.ajax
that does so.) Now, if we want to load the file and wait for it to finish and then do something, we can simply say
get_data() . then(do_something)
for instance,
get_data() .
then(function(data) { console.log(data); });
When using promises, we end up passing lots of functions into then
, so it's often helpful to use the more compact ES6-style arrow functions:
get_data() .
then(data => console.log(data));
The async
keyword
But there's still something vaguely dissatisfying about having to write code one way if synchronous and a quite different way if asynchronous. For synchronous, we write
a();
b();
but if a
is asynchronous, with promises we have to write
a() . then(b);
Above, we said, "JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for the first call to finish before it executes the second". Wouldn't it be nice if there was some way to tell JS that? It turns out that there is--the await
keyword, used inside a special type of function called an "async" function. This feature is part of the upcoming version of ES but is already available in transpilers such as Babel given the right presets. This allows us to simply write
async function morning_routine() {
var milk = await order_milk();
var coffee = await put_in_coffee(milk);
await drink(coffee);
}
In your case, you would be able to write something like
async function foo() {
data = await get_data();
console.log(data);
}
We find ourselves in a universe which appears to progress along a dimension we call "time". We don't really understand what time is, but we have developed abstractions and vocabulary that let us reason and talk about it: "past", "present", "future", "before", "after".
The computer systems we build--more and more--have time as an important dimension. Certain things are set up to happen in the future. Then other things need to happen after those first things eventually occur. This is the basic notion called "asynchronicity". In our increasingly networked world, the most common case of asynchronicity is waiting for some remote system to respond to some request.
Consider an example. You call the milkman and order some milk. When it comes, you want to put it in your coffee. You can't put the milk in your coffee right now, because it is not here yet. You have to wait for it to come before putting it in your coffee. In other words, the following won't work:
var milk = order_milk();
put_in_coffee(milk);
Because JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for order_milk
to finish before it executes put_in_coffee
. In other words, it does not know that order_milk
is asynchronous--is something that is not going to result in milk until some future time. JS, and other declarative languages execute one statement after another without waiting.
The classic JS approach to this problem, taking advantage of the fact that JS supports functions as first-class objects which can be passed around, is to pass a function as a parameter to the asynchronous request, which it will then invoke when it has completed its task sometime in the future. That is the "callback" approach. It looks like this:
order_milk(put_in_coffee);
order_milk
kicks off, orders the milk, then, when and only when it arrives, it invokes put_in_coffee
.
The problem with this callback approach is that it pollutes the normal semantics of a function reporting its result with return
; instead, functions must not reports their results by calling a callback given as a parameter. Also, this approach can rapidly become unwieldy when dealing with longer sequences of events. For example, let's say that I want to wait for the milk to be put in the coffee, and then and only then perform a third step, namely drinking the coffee. I end up needing to write something like this:
order_milk(function(milk) { put_in_coffee(milk, drink_coffee); }
where I am passing to put_in_coffee
both the milk to put in it, and also the action (drink_coffee
) to execute once the milk has been put in. Such code becomes hard to write, and read, and debug.
In this case, we could rewrite the code in the question as:
var answer;
$.ajax('/foo.json') . done(function(response) {
callback(response.data);
});
function callback(data) {
console.log(data);
}
Enter promises
This was the motivation for the notion of a "promise", which is a particular type of value which represents a future or asynchronous outcome of some sort. It can represent something that already happened, or that is going to happen in the future, or might never happen at all. Promises have a single method, named then
, to which you pass an action to be executed when the outcome the promise represents has been realized.
In the case of our milk and coffee, we design order_milk
to return a promise for the milk arriving, then specify put_in_coffee
as a then
action, as follows:
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee)
One advantage of this is that we can string these together to create sequences of future occurrences ("chaining"):
order_milk() . then(put_in_coffee) . then(drink_coffee)
Let's apply promises to your particular problem. We will wrap our request logic inside a function, which returns a promise:
function get_data() {
return $.ajax('/foo.json');
}
Actually, all we've done is added a return
to the call to $.ajax
. This works because jQuery's $.ajax
already returns a kind of promise-like thing. (In practice, without getting into details, we would prefer to wrap this call so as for return a real promise, or use some alternative to $.ajax
that does so.) Now, if we want to load the file and wait for it to finish and then do something, we can simply say
get_data() . then(do_something)
for instance,
get_data() .
then(function(data) { console.log(data); });
When using promises, we end up passing lots of functions into then
, so it's often helpful to use the more compact ES6-style arrow functions:
get_data() .
then(data => console.log(data));
The async
keyword
But there's still something vaguely dissatisfying about having to write code one way if synchronous and a quite different way if asynchronous. For synchronous, we write
a();
b();
but if a
is asynchronous, with promises we have to write
a() . then(b);
Above, we said, "JS has no way to know that it needs to wait for the first call to finish before it executes the second". Wouldn't it be nice if there was some way to tell JS that? It turns out that there is--the await
keyword, used inside a special type of function called an "async" function. This feature is part of the upcoming version of ES but is already available in transpilers such as Babel given the right presets. This allows us to simply write
async function morning_routine() {
var milk = await order_milk();
var coffee = await put_in_coffee(milk);
await drink(coffee);
}
In your case, you would be able to write something like
async function foo() {
data = await get_data();
console.log(data);
}
edited Dec 10 '18 at 5:52
community wiki
4 revs, 3 users 92%
user663031
add a comment |
add a comment |
Using ES2017 you should have this as the function declaration
async function foo() {
var response = await $.ajax({url: '...'})
return response;
}
And executing it like this.
(async function() {
try {
var result = await foo()
console.log(result)
} catch (e) {}
})()
Or the Promise syntax
foo().then(response => {
console.log(response)
}).catch(error => {
console.log(error)
})
add a comment |
Using ES2017 you should have this as the function declaration
async function foo() {
var response = await $.ajax({url: '...'})
return response;
}
And executing it like this.
(async function() {
try {
var result = await foo()
console.log(result)
} catch (e) {}
})()
Or the Promise syntax
foo().then(response => {
console.log(response)
}).catch(error => {
console.log(error)
})
add a comment |
Using ES2017 you should have this as the function declaration
async function foo() {
var response = await $.ajax({url: '...'})
return response;
}
And executing it like this.
(async function() {
try {
var result = await foo()
console.log(result)
} catch (e) {}
})()
Or the Promise syntax
foo().then(response => {
console.log(response)
}).catch(error => {
console.log(error)
})
Using ES2017 you should have this as the function declaration
async function foo() {
var response = await $.ajax({url: '...'})
return response;
}
And executing it like this.
(async function() {
try {
var result = await foo()
console.log(result)
} catch (e) {}
})()
Or the Promise syntax
foo().then(response => {
console.log(response)
}).catch(error => {
console.log(error)
})
answered Jan 24 '18 at 6:18
Fernando CarvajalFernando Carvajal
597513
597513
add a comment |
add a comment |
Let's see the forest first before looking at the trees.
There are many informative answers with great details here, I won't repeat any of them. The key to programming in JavaScript is having first the correct mental model of overall execution.
- Your entry point(s) is executed as the result of an event. For
example, a script tag with code is loaded into the browser.
(Accordingly, this is why you may need to be concerned with the
readiness of the page to run your code if it requires dom elements
to be constructed first, etc.) - Your code executes to completion--however many asynchronous calls it
makes--without executing any of your callbacks, including XHR
requests, set timeouts, dom event handlers, etc. Each of those callbacks waiting to be executed will sit in a queue, waiting their turn to be run after other events that fired have all finished execution. - Each individual callback to an XHR request, set timeout or dom
the event once invoked will then run to completion.
The good news is that if you understand this point well, you will never have to worry about race conditions. You should first and foremost thing of how you want to organize your code as essentially the response to different discrete events, and how you want to thread them together into a logical sequence. You can use promises or higher level new async/await as tools to that end, or you can roll your own.
But you shouldn't use any tactical tools to solve a problem until you are comfortable with the actual problem domain. Draw a map of these dependencies to know what needs to run when. Attempting an ad-hoc approach to all these callbacks is just not going to serve you well.
add a comment |
Let's see the forest first before looking at the trees.
There are many informative answers with great details here, I won't repeat any of them. The key to programming in JavaScript is having first the correct mental model of overall execution.
- Your entry point(s) is executed as the result of an event. For
example, a script tag with code is loaded into the browser.
(Accordingly, this is why you may need to be concerned with the
readiness of the page to run your code if it requires dom elements
to be constructed first, etc.) - Your code executes to completion--however many asynchronous calls it
makes--without executing any of your callbacks, including XHR
requests, set timeouts, dom event handlers, etc. Each of those callbacks waiting to be executed will sit in a queue, waiting their turn to be run after other events that fired have all finished execution. - Each individual callback to an XHR request, set timeout or dom
the event once invoked will then run to completion.
The good news is that if you understand this point well, you will never have to worry about race conditions. You should first and foremost thing of how you want to organize your code as essentially the response to different discrete events, and how you want to thread them together into a logical sequence. You can use promises or higher level new async/await as tools to that end, or you can roll your own.
But you shouldn't use any tactical tools to solve a problem until you are comfortable with the actual problem domain. Draw a map of these dependencies to know what needs to run when. Attempting an ad-hoc approach to all these callbacks is just not going to serve you well.
add a comment |
Let's see the forest first before looking at the trees.
There are many informative answers with great details here, I won't repeat any of them. The key to programming in JavaScript is having first the correct mental model of overall execution.
- Your entry point(s) is executed as the result of an event. For
example, a script tag with code is loaded into the browser.
(Accordingly, this is why you may need to be concerned with the
readiness of the page to run your code if it requires dom elements
to be constructed first, etc.) - Your code executes to completion--however many asynchronous calls it
makes--without executing any of your callbacks, including XHR
requests, set timeouts, dom event handlers, etc. Each of those callbacks waiting to be executed will sit in a queue, waiting their turn to be run after other events that fired have all finished execution. - Each individual callback to an XHR request, set timeout or dom
the event once invoked will then run to completion.
The good news is that if you understand this point well, you will never have to worry about race conditions. You should first and foremost thing of how you want to organize your code as essentially the response to different discrete events, and how you want to thread them together into a logical sequence. You can use promises or higher level new async/await as tools to that end, or you can roll your own.
But you shouldn't use any tactical tools to solve a problem until you are comfortable with the actual problem domain. Draw a map of these dependencies to know what needs to run when. Attempting an ad-hoc approach to all these callbacks is just not going to serve you well.
Let's see the forest first before looking at the trees.
There are many informative answers with great details here, I won't repeat any of them. The key to programming in JavaScript is having first the correct mental model of overall execution.
- Your entry point(s) is executed as the result of an event. For
example, a script tag with code is loaded into the browser.
(Accordingly, this is why you may need to be concerned with the
readiness of the page to run your code if it requires dom elements
to be constructed first, etc.) - Your code executes to completion--however many asynchronous calls it
makes--without executing any of your callbacks, including XHR
requests, set timeouts, dom event handlers, etc. Each of those callbacks waiting to be executed will sit in a queue, waiting their turn to be run after other events that fired have all finished execution. - Each individual callback to an XHR request, set timeout or dom
the event once invoked will then run to completion.
The good news is that if you understand this point well, you will never have to worry about race conditions. You should first and foremost thing of how you want to organize your code as essentially the response to different discrete events, and how you want to thread them together into a logical sequence. You can use promises or higher level new async/await as tools to that end, or you can roll your own.
But you shouldn't use any tactical tools to solve a problem until you are comfortable with the actual problem domain. Draw a map of these dependencies to know what needs to run when. Attempting an ad-hoc approach to all these callbacks is just not going to serve you well.
edited Oct 29 '17 at 8:36
eFarzad
564721
564721
answered Oct 25 '17 at 3:22
Haim ZamirHaim Zamir
17414
17414
add a comment |
add a comment |
Rather than throwing code at you, there are 2 concepts that are key to understanding how JS handles callbacks and asynchronicity. (is that even a word?)
The Event Loop and Concurrency Model
There are three things you need to be aware of; The queue; the event loop and the stack
In broad, simplistic terms, the event loop is like the project manager, it is constantly listening for any functions that want to run and communicates between the queue and the stack.
while (queue.waitForMessage()) {
queue.processNextMessage();
}
Once it receives a message to run something it adds it to the queue. The queue is the list of things that are waiting to execute (like your AJAX request). imagine it like this:
1. call foo.com/api/bar using foobarFunc
2. Go perform an infinite loop
... and so on
When one of these messages is going to execute it pops the message from the queue and creates a stack, the stack is everything JS needs to execute to perform the instruction in the message. So in our example it's being told to call foobarFunc
function foobarFunc (var) {
console.log(anotherFunction(var));
}
So anything that foobarFunc needs to execute (in our case anotherFunction
) will get pushed onto the stack. executed, and then forgotten about - the event loop will then move onto the next thing in the queue (or listen for messages)
The key thing here is the order of execution. That is
WHEN is something going to run
When you make a call using AJAX to an external party or run any asynchronous code (a setTimeout for example), Javascript is dependant upon a response before it can proceed.
The big question is when will it get the response? The answer is we don't know - so the event loop is waiting for that message to say "hey run me". If JS just waited around for that message synchronously your app would freeze and it will suck. So JS carries on executing the next item in the queue whilst waiting for the message to get added back to the queue.
That's why with asynchronous functionality we use things called callbacks. It's kinda like a promise quite literally. As in I promise to return something at some point jQuery uses specific callbacks called deffered.done
deffered.fail
and deffered.always
(amongst others). You can see them all here
So what you need to do is pass a function that is promised to execute at some point with data that is passed to it.
Because a callback is not executed immediately but at a later time it's important to pass the reference to the function not it executed. so
function foo(bla) {
console.log(bla)
}
so most of the time (but not always) you'll pass foo
not foo()
Hopefully that will make some sense. When you encounter things like this that seem confusing - i highly recommend reading the documentation fully to at least get an understanding of it. It will make you a much better developer.
add a comment |
Rather than throwing code at you, there are 2 concepts that are key to understanding how JS handles callbacks and asynchronicity. (is that even a word?)
The Event Loop and Concurrency Model
There are three things you need to be aware of; The queue; the event loop and the stack
In broad, simplistic terms, the event loop is like the project manager, it is constantly listening for any functions that want to run and communicates between the queue and the stack.
while (queue.waitForMessage()) {
queue.processNextMessage();
}
Once it receives a message to run something it adds it to the queue. The queue is the list of things that are waiting to execute (like your AJAX request). imagine it like this:
1. call foo.com/api/bar using foobarFunc
2. Go perform an infinite loop
... and so on
When one of these messages is going to execute it pops the message from the queue and creates a stack, the stack is everything JS needs to execute to perform the instruction in the message. So in our example it's being told to call foobarFunc
function foobarFunc (var) {
console.log(anotherFunction(var));
}
So anything that foobarFunc needs to execute (in our case anotherFunction
) will get pushed onto the stack. executed, and then forgotten about - the event loop will then move onto the next thing in the queue (or listen for messages)
The key thing here is the order of execution. That is
WHEN is something going to run
When you make a call using AJAX to an external party or run any asynchronous code (a setTimeout for example), Javascript is dependant upon a response before it can proceed.
The big question is when will it get the response? The answer is we don't know - so the event loop is waiting for that message to say "hey run me". If JS just waited around for that message synchronously your app would freeze and it will suck. So JS carries on executing the next item in the queue whilst waiting for the message to get added back to the queue.
That's why with asynchronous functionality we use things called callbacks. It's kinda like a promise quite literally. As in I promise to return something at some point jQuery uses specific callbacks called deffered.done
deffered.fail
and deffered.always
(amongst others). You can see them all here
So what you need to do is pass a function that is promised to execute at some point with data that is passed to it.
Because a callback is not executed immediately but at a later time it's important to pass the reference to the function not it executed. so
function foo(bla) {
console.log(bla)
}
so most of the time (but not always) you'll pass foo
not foo()
Hopefully that will make some sense. When you encounter things like this that seem confusing - i highly recommend reading the documentation fully to at least get an understanding of it. It will make you a much better developer.
add a comment |
Rather than throwing code at you, there are 2 concepts that are key to understanding how JS handles callbacks and asynchronicity. (is that even a word?)
The Event Loop and Concurrency Model
There are three things you need to be aware of; The queue; the event loop and the stack
In broad, simplistic terms, the event loop is like the project manager, it is constantly listening for any functions that want to run and communicates between the queue and the stack.
while (queue.waitForMessage()) {
queue.processNextMessage();
}
Once it receives a message to run something it adds it to the queue. The queue is the list of things that are waiting to execute (like your AJAX request). imagine it like this:
1. call foo.com/api/bar using foobarFunc
2. Go perform an infinite loop
... and so on
When one of these messages is going to execute it pops the message from the queue and creates a stack, the stack is everything JS needs to execute to perform the instruction in the message. So in our example it's being told to call foobarFunc
function foobarFunc (var) {
console.log(anotherFunction(var));
}
So anything that foobarFunc needs to execute (in our case anotherFunction
) will get pushed onto the stack. executed, and then forgotten about - the event loop will then move onto the next thing in the queue (or listen for messages)
The key thing here is the order of execution. That is
WHEN is something going to run
When you make a call using AJAX to an external party or run any asynchronous code (a setTimeout for example), Javascript is dependant upon a response before it can proceed.
The big question is when will it get the response? The answer is we don't know - so the event loop is waiting for that message to say "hey run me". If JS just waited around for that message synchronously your app would freeze and it will suck. So JS carries on executing the next item in the queue whilst waiting for the message to get added back to the queue.
That's why with asynchronous functionality we use things called callbacks. It's kinda like a promise quite literally. As in I promise to return something at some point jQuery uses specific callbacks called deffered.done
deffered.fail
and deffered.always
(amongst others). You can see them all here
So what you need to do is pass a function that is promised to execute at some point with data that is passed to it.
Because a callback is not executed immediately but at a later time it's important to pass the reference to the function not it executed. so
function foo(bla) {
console.log(bla)
}
so most of the time (but not always) you'll pass foo
not foo()
Hopefully that will make some sense. When you encounter things like this that seem confusing - i highly recommend reading the documentation fully to at least get an understanding of it. It will make you a much better developer.
Rather than throwing code at you, there are 2 concepts that are key to understanding how JS handles callbacks and asynchronicity. (is that even a word?)
The Event Loop and Concurrency Model
There are three things you need to be aware of; The queue; the event loop and the stack
In broad, simplistic terms, the event loop is like the project manager, it is constantly listening for any functions that want to run and communicates between the queue and the stack.
while (queue.waitForMessage()) {
queue.processNextMessage();
}
Once it receives a message to run something it adds it to the queue. The queue is the list of things that are waiting to execute (like your AJAX request). imagine it like this:
1. call foo.com/api/bar using foobarFunc
2. Go perform an infinite loop
... and so on
When one of these messages is going to execute it pops the message from the queue and creates a stack, the stack is everything JS needs to execute to perform the instruction in the message. So in our example it's being told to call foobarFunc
function foobarFunc (var) {
console.log(anotherFunction(var));
}
So anything that foobarFunc needs to execute (in our case anotherFunction
) will get pushed onto the stack. executed, and then forgotten about - the event loop will then move onto the next thing in the queue (or listen for messages)
The key thing here is the order of execution. That is
WHEN is something going to run
When you make a call using AJAX to an external party or run any asynchronous code (a setTimeout for example), Javascript is dependant upon a response before it can proceed.
The big question is when will it get the response? The answer is we don't know - so the event loop is waiting for that message to say "hey run me". If JS just waited around for that message synchronously your app would freeze and it will suck. So JS carries on executing the next item in the queue whilst waiting for the message to get added back to the queue.
That's why with asynchronous functionality we use things called callbacks. It's kinda like a promise quite literally. As in I promise to return something at some point jQuery uses specific callbacks called deffered.done
deffered.fail
and deffered.always
(amongst others). You can see them all here
So what you need to do is pass a function that is promised to execute at some point with data that is passed to it.
Because a callback is not executed immediately but at a later time it's important to pass the reference to the function not it executed. so
function foo(bla) {
console.log(bla)
}
so most of the time (but not always) you'll pass foo
not foo()
Hopefully that will make some sense. When you encounter things like this that seem confusing - i highly recommend reading the documentation fully to at least get an understanding of it. It will make you a much better developer.
answered May 4 '18 at 15:56
Matthew BrentMatthew Brent
784518
784518
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 2
next
protected by Travis J May 30 '13 at 20:57
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
28
@MaximShoustin I've added a JavaScript only answer (no jQuery) but like Felix said - "How do I return the response from an AJAX call" is really a nice way to say "How does concurrency work in JavaScript". Not to mention Angular's
$http
is very similar to jQuery's$.ajax
anyway with some minor differences (like interoping with the digest cycle).– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Dec 22 '13 at 21:42
134
Do not use
async: false
. It will freeze the browser and drive users away. Read blog.slaks.net/2015-01-04/async-method-patterns to learn how to work with asynchronous operations.– SLaks
Jul 6 '15 at 17:22
9
It is possible like You did this by ading async: false as attribute of first parameter. See my answer below. @tvanfosson gave this solution on Stackoverflow.
– arrowman
Jan 29 '16 at 12:26
7
this mey help you codingbin.com/get-return-data-ajax-call
– Manoj Kumar
Mar 16 '16 at 10:09
7
@SLaks Someone please relay that to the website "rock star developers" at AirAsia.com. That's a great live case study (enhanced by the ajax calls taking a couple of seconds) of why never to use async: false.
– Mâtt Frëëman
Jul 6 '17 at 13:35