Note: Additional information appended to end of original question as Edit #1, detailing how request-promise in the back-end is causing the UI freeze. Keep in mind that a pure CSS animation is hanging temporarily, and you can probably just skip to the edit (or read all for completeness)
The setup
I'm working on a desktop webapp, using Electron.
At one point, the user is required to enter and submit some data. When they click "submit", I use JS to show this css loading animation (bottom-right loader), and send data asynchronously to the back-end...
- HTML -
<button id="submitBtn" type="submit" disabled="true">Go!</button>
<div class="submit-loader">
<div class="loader _hide"></div>
</div>
- JS -
form.addEventListener('submit', function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
loader.classList.remove('_hide');
setTimeout(function() {
ipcRenderer.send('credentials:submit', credentials);
}, 0)
});
where ._hide is simply
._hide {
visibility: hidden;
}
and where ipcRenderer.send() is an async method, without option to set otherwise.
The problem
Normally, the 0ms delay is sufficient to allow the DOM to be changed before the blocking event takes place. But not here. Whether using the setTimeout() or not, there is still a delay.
So, add a tiny delay...
loader.classList.remove('_hide');
setTimeout(function() {
ipcRenderer.send('credentials:submit', credentials);
}, 100);
Great! The loader displays immediately upon submitting! But... after 100ms, the animation stops dead in its tracks, for about 500ms or so, and then gets back to chooching.
This working -> not working -> working pattern happens regardless of the delay length. As soon as the ipcRenderer starts doing stuff, everything is halted.
So... Why!?
This is the first time I've seen this kind of behavior. I'm pretty well-versed in HTML/CSS/JS, but am admittedly new to NodeJS and Electron. Why is my pure CSS animation being halted by the ipcRenderer, and what can I do to remedy this?
Edit #1 - Additional Info
In the back-end (NodeJS), I am using request-promise to make a call to an external API. This happens when the back-end receives the ipcRenderer message.
var rp = require('request-promise');
ipcMain.on('credentials:submit', function(e, credentials) {
var options = {
headers : {
... api-key...
},
json: true,
url : url,
method : 'GET'
};
return rp(options).then(function(data) {
... send response to callback...
}).catch(function(err) {
... send error to callback...
});
}
The buggy freezing behavior only happens on the first API call. Successive API calls (i.e. refreshing the desktop app without restarting the NodeJS backend), do not cause the hang-up. Even if I call a different API method, there are no issues.
For now, I've implemented the following hacky workaround:
First, initialize the first BrowserWindow with show:false...
window = new BrowserWindow({
show: false
});
When the window is ready, send a ping to the external API, and only display the window after a successful response...
window.on('ready-to-show', function() {
apiWrapper.ping(function(response) {
if(response.error) {
app.quit();
}else {
window.show(true);
}
});
});
This extra step means that there is about 500ms delay before the window appears, but then all successive API calls (whether .ping() or otherwise) no longer block the UI. We're getting to the verge of callback hell, but this isn't too bad.
So... this is a request-promise issue (which is asynchronous, as far as I can tell from the docs). Not sure why this behavior is only showing-up on the first call, so please feel free to let me know if you know! Otherwise, the little hacky bit will have to do for now.
(Note: I'm the only person who will ever use this desktop app, so I'm not too worried about displaying a "ping failed" message. For a commercial release, I would alert the user to a failed API call.)
Worth to check how does request-promise internally setups up module loading. reading it, it seems like there is kind of lazy loading (https://github.com/request/request-promise/blob/master/lib/rp.js#L10-L12) when request is being called. Quick try out
const convertHrtime = require('convert-hrtime');
const a = require('request-promise');
const start = process.hrtime();
a({uri: 'https://requestb.in/17on4me1'});
const end = process.hrtime(start);
console.log(convertHrtime(end));
const start2 = process.hrtime();
a({uri: 'https://requestb.in/17on4me1'});
const end2 = process.hrtime(start2);
console.log(convertHrtime(end2));
returns value like below:
{ seconds: 0.00421092,
milliseconds: 4.21092,
nanoseconds: 4210920 }
{ seconds: 0.000511664,
milliseconds: 0.511664,
nanoseconds: 511664 }
first call is obviously taking longer than subsequent. (number of course may vary, I ran this on bare node.js on relatively fast cpu) If module loading is major cost for first call, then it'll block main process until module is loaded (cause node.js require resolve is synchronous)
I'm not able to say this is concrete reason, but worth to check. As suggested in comment, try other lib or bare internal module (like Electron's net) to rule out.
efor this problem i am using Node-Webkit (node.js) and Async, loading a Windows App.
The reason of this question is to definitively answer:
What really means asynchronous execution in Javascript and Node.Js.
My personal code problem is at the end of the Question. "The Case".
I am going to explain all about the problem i have directly with a schematic summary. (And I will be updating the info as you help me to understand it)
The Concept (theory)
Imagine a Primary Screen (JS, Html, css, ... Node.js frameworks) and a Background Procedure (JS execution every 10 min, JS internal checks, background Database Optimization, ...).
Whatever you do in Primary Screen wont affect background execution (except some important cases), and Background can change even the Screen if he needs to (screen timers, info about online web status, ...)
Then the behaviour is like:
Thread 1: Your actions inside the App framework. Thread 2: Background App routines
Any action as they finish gives his output to screen, despite of the rest of the actions in async parallel
The Interpretation (For me)
I think this is something that "Async" will handle without problems, as a parallel execution.
async.parallel([
function(){ ... },
function(){ ... }
], callback); //optional callback
So the Thread 1 and Thread 2 can work together correctly while they do not affect the same code or instruction.
The Content will be changing while any threads request something of/to it.
The Implementation (Reality)
Code is not fully asynchronous during the execution, there are sync parts with common actions, that when they need calls the async codes.
Sync: Startup with containers -> Async: load multiple content and do general stuff -> Sync: Do an action in the screen -> ...
The Case
So here it is my not working properly code:
win.on('loaded', function() {
$( "#ContentProgram" ).load( "view/launcherWorkSpace.html", function() {
$("#bgLauncher").hide();
win.show();
async.parallel([
function() //**Background Process: Access to DB and return HTML content**
{
var datacontent = new data.GetActiveData();
var exeSQL = new data.conn(datacontent);
if(exeSQL.Res)
{
var r = exeSQL.Content;
if(r.Found)
{
logSalon = new data.activeSData(r)
$('#RelativeInfo').empty();
$("#RelativeInfo").html("<h4 class='text-success'>Data found: <b>" + logData.getName + "</b></h4>");
}
}
},
function() //**Foreground Process: See an effect on screen during load.**
{
$("#bgLauncher").fadeIn(400);
$("#centralAccess").delay(500).animate({bottom:0},200);
}
]);
});
});
As you can see, im not using "Callback()" because i dont need to (and it does the same).
I want to do the Foreground Process even if Background Process is not finished, but the result of the code is done at same time when both request has finished...
If i disconect the DB manually, first function takes 3 seconds until gives an exception (that i wont handle). Until then, both proccess will not output (show on screen) anything. (Foreground Process should be launched whatever happends to Background Process).
Thanks and sorry for so much explanation for something that looks like trivial.
EDITED
This start to be annoying... I tried without Async, just a javascript with callback like this:
launchEffect(function () {
var datacontent = new data.GetActiveData();
var exeSQL = new data.conn(datacontent);
if(exeSQL.Res)
{
var r = exeSQL.Content;
if(r.Found)
{
logData = new data.activeData(r)
$('#RelativeInfo').empty();
$("#RelativeInfo").html("<h4 class='text-success'>Salón: <b>" + log.getName + "</b></h4>");
}
}
});
});
});
function launchEffect(callback)
{
$("#bgLauncher").fadeIn(400);
$("#centralAccess").delay(500).animate({bottom:0},200);
callback();
}
Even with this... Jquery doesnt work until the callback answer...
node-webkit let's you run code written like code for node.js, but is ultimately just a shim running in WebKit's Javascript runtime and only has one thread, which means that most 'asynchronous' code will still block the execution of any other code.
If you were running node.js itself, you'd see different behavior because it can do genuinely asynchronous threading behind the scenes. If you want more threads, you'll need to supply them in your host app.
I made a CMS which during operation pulls large amounts of data.
CMS is made in PHP, MySQL, jQuery, Bootstrap and use AJAX.
The problem is if you lose your internet connection can cause problems on displaying and scrolling.
I would love if there is a good way to show the error and blocks all functions on the site when there is no internet connection. When the connection is established it should be all function allowed on the site.
Thanks!
(Sorry for my bad English.)
If you are using jQuery, you can just hook on the global error handler and lock up your application when an error occurs. The lock up screen could simply ask to try again.
$( document ).ajaxError(function() {
// lock your UI here
});
Also, once the UI is locked, you could execute a function that would ping your server in an Exponential Backoff fashion and automatically unlock the application on network restore.
Locking your app can easily be done with jQuery's blockUI plugin.
Example
(function ($) {
var locked = false;
var errorRetryCount = 0;
var blockUiOptions = { message: "Oops! Could not reach the server!" };
// change this function to adjust the exponential backoff delay
function backoff(n) {
return Math.pow(2, n) * 100;
}
$(function () {
$( document ).ajaxError(function () {
var req = this;
errorRetryCount += 1;
if (!locked) {
locked = true;
$.blockUI(blockUiOptions);
}
// retry to send the request...
setTimeout(function () { $.ajax(req); }, backoff(errorRetryCount));
}).ajaxSuccess(function () {
locked && $.unblockUI();
locked = false;
errorRetryCount = 0;
});
});
})(jQuery);
Note: You may not want to retry indefinitely your request upon network failure, and would want to quit retrying at some point. Since this is out of the scope of this question, I'll leave it as it is. However, you may take a look at this related question, which may help you sort this part out.
If you're using jQuery already, you could create a simple ajax call to your server, and if it fails within a couple of seconds, either your server or the clients internet connection is down.
Something like this:
setInterval(function() {
$.ajax({
url: "https://cms.example.com/ping",
})
.fail(function( data ) {
alert('Connection lost?');
// remember do to something smart which shows the error just once
// instead of every five seconds. Increasing the interval every
// time it fails seems a good start.
});
}, 5*1000);
Using plain JavaScript and simple code:
window.navigator.onLine ? 'on' : 'off'
It supports by almost every browser, please check Can I use
edit: re-read your question and misunderstood my first pass through so this wouldn't be valid for continuous monitoring... but i'll leave it here anyways as it may be useful for someone else.
i would suggest loading a small js file that adds a class to an element of your page and then checking if that class is applied after the fact... assuming you are using jQuery
file on the remote server loaded into your page after jQuery via script tag
$('html').addClass('connected');
local code
if($('html').hasClass('connected')) {
// connected
} else {
// not connected
}
Sometimes my app behave strange. Some of my requests start to take for a long time and then could failed, without any system. And after even looking through the logs I can't find such request in it, and it's looks like they even wasn't handled by the server.
So I want to implement clientside script, who will be track longterm or failed requests, and then send this info to server.
What is a best way to implement such a functionality?
(1) You can override XMLHttpRequest to provide the desired functionality.
var mylog = [];
XMLHttpRequest = (function(XMLHttpRequest) {
return function() {
XMLHttpRequest.apply(this, arguments);
this.timeout = 30 * 1000; //thirty seconds
this.ontimeout = function() {
mylog.push("Request timed out");
};
};
})(XMLHttpRequest);
setInterval(function() {
//send to server
mylog = [];
}, 60 * 1000);
(2) You can create your own XHR factory that sets timeout and ontimeout on them. You much change all your code to use this.
(3) You didn't mention jQuery, so I won't spend too much time on this, but with jQuery, you can use $.ajaxSetup to set default parameters.
Really though, you should spend your time trying to track this from the server end; they are much more reliable in gathering what you want.
This article hit the top of HackerNews recently: http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/9/18/if-youre-programming-a-cell-phone-like-a-server-youre-doing.html#
In which it states:
The cell radio is one of the biggest battery drains on a phone. Every time you send data, no matter how small, the radio is powered on for up for 20-30 seconds. Every decision you make should be based on minimizing the number of times the radio powers up. Battery life can be dramatically improved by changing the way your apps handle data transfers. Users want their data now, the trick is balancing user experience with transferring data and minimizing power usage. A balance is achieved by apps carefully bundling all repeating and intermittent transfers together and then aggressively prefetching the intermittent transfers.
I would like to modify $.ajax to add an option like "doesn't need to be done right now, just do this request when another request is launched". What would be a good way to go about this?
I started with this:
(function($) {
var batches = [];
var oldAjax = $.fn.ajax;
var lastAjax = 0;
var interval = 5*60*1000; // Should be between 2-5 minutes
$.fn.extend({batchedAjax: function() {
batches.push(arguments);
}});
var runBatches = function() {
var now = new Date().getTime();
var batched;
if (lastAjax + interval < now) {
while (batched = batches.pop()) {
oldAjax.apply(null, batched);
}
}
}
setInterval(runBatches, interval);
$.fn.ajax = function() {
runBatches();
oldAjax.apply(null, arguments);
lastAjax = now;
};
})(jQuery);
I can't tell by the wording of the paper, I guess a good batch "interval" is 2-5 minutes, so I just used 5.
Is this a good implementation?
How can I make this a true modification of just the ajax method, by adding a {batchable:true} option to the method? I haven't quite figured that out either.
Does setInterval also keep the phone awake all the time? Is that a bad thing to do? Is there a better way to not do that?
Are there other things here that would cause a battery to drain faster?
Is this kind of approach even worthwhile? There are so many things going on at once in a modern smartphone, that if my app isn't using the cell, surely some other app is. Javascript can't detect if the cell is on or not, so why bother? Is it worth bothering?
I made some progress on adding the option to $.ajax, started to edit the question, and realized it's better as an answer:
(function($) {
var batches = [];
var oldAjax = $.fn.ajax;
var lastAjax = 0;
var interval = 5*60*1000; // Should be between 2-5 minutes
var runBatches = function() {
var now = new Date().getTime();
var batched;
if (lastAjax + interval < now) {
while (batched = batches.pop()) {
oldAjax.apply(null, batched);
}
}
}
setInterval(runBatches, interval);
$.fn.ajax = function(url, options) {
if (options.batchable) {
batches.push(arguments);
return;
}
runBatches();
oldAjax.apply(null, arguments);
lastAjax = now;
};
})(jQuery);
That was actually fairly straightforward. Is love to see a better answer though.
Does setInterval also keep the phone awake all the time? Is that a bad thing to do? Is there a better way to not do that?
From an iPhone 4, iOS 6.1.0 Safari environment:
A wrote an app with a countdown timer that updated an element's text on one-second intervals. The DOM tree had about medium complexity. The app was a relatively-simple calculator that didn't do any AJAX. However, I always had a sneaking suspicion that those once-per-second reflows were killing me. My battery sure seemed to deplete rather quickly, whenever I left it turned-on on a table, with Safari on the app's webpage.
And there were only two timeouts in that app. Now, I don't have any quantifiable proof that the timeouts were draining my battery, but losing about 10% every 45 minutes from this dopey calculator was a little unnerving. (Who knows though, maybe it was the backlight.)
On that note: You may want to build a test app that does AJAX on intervals, other things on intervals, etc, and compare how each function drains your battery under similar conditions. Getting a controlled environment might be tricky, but if there is a big enough difference in drain, then even "imperfect" testing conditions will yield noticeable-enough results for you to draw a conclusion.
However, I found out an interesting thing about how iOS 6.1.0 Safari handles timeouts:
The timeouts don't run their callbacks if you turn off the screen.
Consequentially, long-term timeouts will "miss their mark."
If my app's timer was to display the correct time (even after I closed and reopened the screen), then I couldn't go the easy route and do secondsLeft -= 1. If I turned off the screen, then the secondsLeft (relative to my starting time) would have been "behind," and thus incorrect. (The setTimeout callback did not run while the screen was turned off.)
The solution was that I had to recalculate timeLeft = fortyMinutes - (new Date().getTime() - startTime) on each interval.
Also, the timer in my app was supposed to change from green, to lime, to yellow, to red, as it got closer to expiry. Since, at this point, I was worried about the efficiency of my interval-code, I suspected that it would be better to "schedule" my color changes for their appropriate time (lime: 20 minutes after starting time, yellow: 30 mins, red: 35) (this seemed preferable to a quadruple-inequality-check on every interval, which would be futile 99% of the time).
However, if I scheduled such a color change, and my phone's screen was turned off at the target time, then that color change would never happen.
The solution was to check, on each interval, if the time elapsed since the last 1-second timer update had been ">= 2 seconds". (This way, the app could know if my phone had had its screen turned off; it was able to realize when it had "fallen behind.") At that point, if necessary, I would "forcibly" apply a color change and schedule the next one.
(Needless to say, I later removed the color-changer...)
So, I believe this confirms my claim that
iOS 6.1.0 Safari does not execute setTimeout callback functions if the screen is turned off.
So keep this in mind when "scheduling" your AJAX calls, because you will probably be affected by this behavior as well.
And, using my proposition, I can answer your question:
At least for iOS, we know that setTimeout sleeps while the screen is off.
Thus setTimeout won't give your phone "nightmares" ("keep it awake").
Is this kind of approach even worthwhile? There are so many things going on at once in a modern smartphone, that if my app isn't using the cell, surely some other app is. Javascript can't detect if the cell is on or not, so why bother? Is it worth bothering?
If you can get this implementation to work correctly then it seems like it would be worthwhile.
You will incur latency for every AJAX request you make, which will slow down your app to some degree. (Latency is the bane of page loading time, after all.) So you will definitely achieve some gain by "bundling" requests. Extending $.ajax such that you can "batch" requests will definitely have some merit.
The article you've linked clearly focuses on optimizing power consumption for apps (yes, the weather widget example is horrifying). Actively using a browser is, by definition, a foreground task; plus something like ApplicationCache is already available to reduce the need for network requests. You can then programmatically update the cache as required and avoid DIY.
Sceptical side note: if you are using jQuery as part of your HTML5 app (perhaps wrapped in Sencha or similar), perhaps the mobile app framework has more to do with request optimization than the code itself. I have no proof whatsoever, but goddammit this sounds about right :)
How can I make this a true modification of just the ajax method, by
adding a {batchable:true} option to the method? I haven't quite
figured that out either.
A perfectly valid approach but to me this sounds like duck punching gone wrong. I wouldn't. Even if you correctly default batchable to false, personally I would rather use a facade (perhaps even in its own namespace?)
var gQuery = {}; //gQuery = green jQuery, patent pending :)
gQuery.ajax = function(options,callback){
//your own .ajax with blackjack and hooking timeouts, ultimately just calling
$.ajax(options);
}
Does setInterval also keep the phone awake all the time? Is that a
bad thing to do? Is there a better way to not do that?
Native implementations of setInterval and setTimeout are very similar afaik; think of the latter not firing while the website is in the background for online banking inactivity prompts; when a page is not in the foreground its execution is basically halted. If an API is available for such "deferrals" (the article mentions of some relevant iOS7 capabilities) then it's likely a preferable approach, otherwise I see no reason to avoid setInterval.
Are there other things here that would cause a battery to drain
faster?
I'd speculate that any heavy load would (from calculating pi to pretty 3d transitions perhaps). But this sounds like premature optimization to me and reminds me of an e-reader with battery-saving mode that turned the LCD screen completely off :)
Is this kind of approach even worthwhile? There are so many things
going on at once in a modern smartphone, that if my app isn't using
the cell, surely some other app is. Javascript can't detect if the
cell is on or not, so why bother? Is it worth bothering?
The article pointed out a weather app being unreasonably greedy, and that would concern me. It seems to be a development oversight though more than anything else, as in fetching data more often than it's really needed. In an ideal world, this should be nicely handled on OS level, otherwise you'd end up with an array of competing workarounds. IMO: don't bother until highscalability posts another article telling you to :)
Here is my version:
(function($) {
var batches = [],
ajax = $.fn.ajax,
interval = 5*60*1000, // Should be between 2-5 minutes
timeout = setTimeout($.fn.ajax, interval);
$.fn.ajax=function(url, options) {
var batched, returns;
if(typeof url === "string") {
batches.push(arguments);
if(options.batchable) {
return;
}
}
while (batched = batches.shift()) {
returns = ajax.apply(null, batched);
}
clearTimeout(timeout);
timeout = setTimeout($.fn.ajax, interval);
return returns;
}
})(jQuery);
I think this version has the following main advantages:
If there is a non-batchable ajax call, the connection is used to send all batches. This Resets the timer.
Returns the expected return value on direct ajax calls
A direct processing of the batches can be triggered by calling $.fn.ajax() without parameters
As far as hacking the $.ajax method, I would :
try to also preserve the Promise mechanism provided by $.ajax,
take advantage of one of the global ajax events to trigger ajax calls,
maybe add a timer, to have the batch being called anyways in case no "immediate" $.ajax call is made,
give a new name to this function (in my code : $.batchAjax) and keep the orginal $.ajax.
Here is my go :
(function ($) {
var queue = [],
timerID = 0;
function ajaxQueue(url, settings) {
// cutom deferred used to forward the $.ajax' promise
var dfd = new $.Deferred();
// when called, this function executes the $.ajax call
function call() {
$.ajax(url, settings)
.done(function () {
dfd.resolveWith(this, arguments);
})
.fail(function () {
dfd.rejectWith(this, arguments);
});
}
// set a global timer, which will trigger the dequeuing in case no ajax call is ever made ...
if (timerID === 0) {
timerID = window.setTimeout(ajaxCallOne, 5000);
}
// enqueue this function, for later use
queue.push(call);
// return the promise
return dfd.promise();
}
function ajaxCallOne() {
window.clearTimeout(timerID);
timerID = 0;
if (queue.length > 0) {
f = queue.pop();
// async call : wait for the current ajax events
//to be processed before triggering a new one ...
setTimeout(f, 0);
}
}
// use the two functions :
$(document).bind('ajaxSend', ajaxCallOne);
// or :
//$(document).bind('ajaxComplete', ajaxCallOne);
$.batchAjax = ajaxQueue;
}(jQuery));
In this example, the hard coded delay fo 5 seconds defeats the purpose of "if less than 20 seconds between calls, it drains the battery". You can put a bigger one (5 minutes ?), or remove it altogether - it all depends on your app really.
fiddle
Regarding the general question "How do I write a web app which doesn't burn a phone's battery in 5 minutes ?" : it will take more than one magic arrow to deal with that one. It is a whole set of design decisions you will have to take, which really depends on your app.
You will have to arbitrate between loading as much data as possible in one go (and possibly send data which won't be used) vs fetching what you need (and possibly send many small individual requests).
Some parameters to take into account are :
volume of data (you don't want to drain your clients data plan either ...),
server load,
how much can be cached,
importance of being "up to date" (5 minutes delay for a chat app won't work),
frequency of client updates (a network game will probably require lots of updates from the client, a news app probably less ...).
One rather general suggestion : you can add a "live update" checkbox, and store its state client side. When unchecked, the client should hit a "refresh" button to download new data.
Here is my go, it somewhat grew out of what #Joe Frambach posted but I wanted the following additions:
retain the jXHR and error/success callbacks if they were provided
Debounce identical requests (by url and options match) while still triggering the callbacks or jqXHRs provided for EACH call
Use AjaxSettings to make configuration easier
Don't have each non batched ajax flush the batch, those should be separate processes IMO, but thus supply an option to force a batch flush as well.
Either way, this sucker would mostly likely be better done as a separate plugin rather than overriding and affecting the default .ajax function... enjoy:
(function($) {
$.ajaxSetup({
batchInterval: 5*60*1000,
flushBatch: false,
batchable: false,
batchDebounce: true
});
var batchRun = 0;
var batches = {};
var oldAjax = $.fn.ajax;
var queueBatch = function(url, options) {
var match = false;
var dfd = new $.Deferred();
batches[url] = batches[url] || [];
if(options.batchDebounce || $.ajaxSettings.batchDebounce) {
if(!options.success && !options.error) {
$.each(batches[url], function(index, batchedAjax) {
if($.param(batchedAjax.options) == $.param(options)) {
match = index;
return false;
}
});
}
if(match === false) {
batches[url].push({options:options, dfds:[dfd]});
} else {
batches[url][match].dfds.push(dfd);
}
} else {
batches[url].push({options:options, dfds:[dfd]);
}
return dfd.promise();
}
var runBatches = function() {
$.each(batches, function(url, batchedOptions) {
$.each(batchedOptions, function(index, batchedAjax) {
oldAjax.apply(null, url, batchedAjax.options).then(
function(data, textStatus, jqXHR) {
var args = arguments;
$.each(batchedAjax.dfds, function(index, dfd) {
dfd.resolve(args);
});
}, function(jqXHR, textStatus, errorThrown) {
var args = arguments;
$.each(batchedAjax.dfds, function(index, dfd) {
dfd.reject(args);
});
}
)
});
});
batches = {};
batchRun = new Date.getTime();
}
setInterval(runBatches, $.ajaxSettings.batchInterval);
$.fn.ajax = function(url, options) {
if (options.batchable) {
var xhr = queueBatch(url, options);
if((new Date.getTime()) - batchRun >= options.batchInterval) {
runBatches();
}
return xhr;
}
if (options.flushBatch) {
runBatches();
}
return oldAjax.call(null, url, options);
};
})(jQuery);