I have a Div that uses jQuery to load a file/contents with a javascript function..
function DoWork() {
// Do Stuff
}
Let's say the user can reload the Div and pull the same file/contents with the same js function DoWork(). The problem is, when the file is reloaded, the previous loaded function DoWork() is still running. How can I kill the previous fired DoWork() and restart it?
Javascript is single-threaded, which means only one thing can be executing at a given moment. If DoWork is already "running" it's either a) blocking all other JS code, and you have no choice but to let it finish since you have no way to execute any interruption code until it finishes on its own, or b) DoWork is scheduled to fire off on an interval via setTimeout() or setInterval().
If it's the latter case, setTimeout() and setInterval() return an ID. Store that ID somewhere and call clearTimeout(doWork_timeout_id) or clearInterval(doWork_interval_id) according to how you started it.
You can build a simple function that use: setTimeout and then each call to DoWork will call first to: clearTimeout. I don't really like this solution because you will waste CPU on setTimeout.
So another option will be to use web worker in DoWork (It will do lots of other good things for you in case you are working with big data as it's running in another thread) - then you get an option to send 'stop' message each time you start the work of DoWork().
Are you using ajax to load the div's contents? if so, the better way is as follows:
var doWorkAjax=null;
function DoWork(){
if (doWorkAjax) doWorkAjax.abort();
doWorkAjax = $.ajax(url, data, function(result){
....
doWorkAjax=null;
});
}
Related
I have the following event listener
button.addEventListener('click', function(){
this.classList.add('disabled');
aFunctionThatTakesLongToExecute();
});
The problem is that the repaint on the screen associated with the newly added class for the button takes place on when the execution of aFunctionThatTakesLongToExecute is completed and that creates a stutter-y user experience.
Is there a way to force a repaint even while the javascript function is executing?
I don't really understand the behavior you're describing, but you can wrap your function call like this :
setTimeout(aFunctionThatTakesLongToExecute);
Basically, it calls your method asynchronously and immediatly, as setTimeout second parameter is not set (usually it is the time before execution in milliseconds).
Keep in mind that this syntax works if aFunctionThatTakesLongToExecute does not take any parameters. Else, you have to wrap the function call in another (anonymous) function and give that new function to the setTimeout instruction like this :
setTimeout(() => {
aFunctionThatTakesLongToExecute(yourParameter);
});
Here's a link to the doc : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WindowOrWorkerGlobalScope/setTimeout
I have a UI where I need animations to run smoothly. Every so often, I need to do a semi-large data calculation that makes the animation skip until it is this calculation is completed.
I am trying to get around this by making the data calculation async with setTimeout. Something like setTimeout(calcData(), 0);
The whole code is something like this (simplified):
while (animating) {
performAnimation();
if (needCalc) {
setTimeout(calcData(), 0);
}
}
But I still get a skip in the animation. It runs smoothly when I do not need to do any data calculations. How can I do this effectively? Thanks!
You are seeing the skip because only one javascript thread is run at once. When something is done asynchronously the javascript engine puts it a queue to be ran later, then finds something else to execute. When something in the queue needs to be done the engine will pull it out and execute it, blocking all other operations until it completes.The engine then pulls something else out of its queue to execute.
So if you want to allow your render to run smoothly you must break up your calculation into multiple async calls, allowing the engine to schedule the render operation in between calculations. This is easy to accomplish if you are just iterating over a array, so you can do something like:
var now=Date.now;
if(window.performance&&performance.now){//use performace.now if we can
now=performance.now;
}
function calculate(){
var batchSize=10;//If you have a exceptionally long operation you may want to make this lower.
var i=0;
var next=function(){
var start=now();
while(now()-start<14){//14ms / frame
var end=Math.min(i+batchSize,data.length);
for(;i<end;i++){//do batches to reduce time overhead
do_calc(data[i]);
}
}
if(i<data.length) setTimeout(next,1)//defer to next tick
};
next();
}
calculate();
function render(){
do_render_stuff();
if(animating) {
requestAnimationFrame(render);//use requestAnimationFrame rather then setTimeout for rendering
}
}
render();
Better yet, if you can, you should use WebWorkers which work in a different thread, completely separate from the main js engine. However you are stuck with this if you need to do something you cant do in a WebWorker, such as manipulating the DOM tree.
Firstly, let's talk what's going on in your code:
while (animating) {
performAnimation();
if (needCalc) {
// it should be setTimeout(calcData, 0);
setTimeout(calcData(), 0);
}
}
In line setTimeout(calcData(), 0); really you don't defer calling of calcData function, you call it, because you use () operator after function name.
Secondly, lets think, what's going on when you really make defer calling for calcData in the code above: commonly JavaScript is running in one thread, so, if you have code like this:
setTimeout(doSomething, 0);
while (true) {};
doSomething will never be called, because interpreter of javascript executes while loop forever and it hasn't "free time" to execute other things (even UI) . setTimeout - just say to schedule execution of doSomething when interpreter will be free and it's time to execute this function.
So, when browser executes javascript function, all other stuff become freezing.
Solution:
If you have big data that you need to process, maybe it would be better to make calculations on backend and after send results to frontend.
Usually when you need to make some calculation and render results it's better to use requestAnimationFrame than while loop. Browser will execute function passed in requestAnimationFrame as soon as possible, but also you give browser a time to handle other events. You can see smooth redrawing using requestAnimationFrame for game (step-by-step tutorial here).
If you really want to process huge amount of data at frontend part and you want to make ui works smooth, you can try to use WebWorkers. WebWorkers look like threads in JavaScript, you need to communicate between main UI "thread" and WebWorker by passing messages from one to another and back and calculations on WebWorker don't affect UI thread.
Mostly, your problem boils down to your incorrect usage of setTimeout()
setTimeout(calcData(), 0);
The first argument to setTimeout is a REFERENCE to the function that you wish to call. In your code, you are not referencing the calcData function, you are invoking it because you've included () after the function name.
Second, the fact that you've put 0 for the delay does not mean you will have a 0 second delay before the function runs. JavaScript runs in a single threaded context. The setTimeout function is placed in a queue and executed when the JavaScript engine is available, but no sooner than a minimum of 10ms or the amount you specify (whichever is less).
Realistically, your line should be:
setTimeout(calcData(),10);
I would like to put a delay after a button is pressed in order for the button to load the data from the cache before executing the next line of code. Would putting a sleep be the best way to do this?
Something like this or is there an alternative approach to best solve this problem?
setInterval(document.getElementById("generateButton"), 1000);
Don't use setInterval to do this. It doesn't have the functionality you seem to desire (it repeats). Instead, use jQuery and do something like this:
$("#generateButton").click(function(event){
setTimeout(function(){
//Do what the button normally does
}, 1000);
});
Or (without JQuery):
var generateButton = document.getElementById("generateButton");
generateButton.addEventListener("click", function(){
setTimeout(function(){
//Do what the button normally does
}, 1000);
});
Using setTimeout over setInterval is preferred in your case because setTimeout runs only once while setInterval runs multiple times.
I assume you have, in your html, <button id='generateButton' onclick='someFunction()'>Button Text</button>. Remove the onclick='someFunction() and put your someFunction() where I said (in the examples) "Do what the button normally does."
You can also add in the code that loads the cache a method that calls another method once the cache has been loaded (when the someFunction() from the button is called, it loads the cache, and at the end of the function (set this up using callbacks), once the cache has been loaded, it calls another method onCacheLoaded() that can be run once the cache has been loaded.
You should use callbacks, so the moment you loaded data from cache you can call it and continue executing the rest of the script.
You cannot use interval since you cannot be sure how much time is needed for the data to load. Though keep in mind the asynchronous nature of javascript and don't block the part of the script that does not depend on the data that's being loaded.
Try setTimeout:
myButton.addEventListener('click', function() {
setTimeout(delayed, 1e3); // Delay code
}, false);
function delayed() {
// Do whatever
}
Note setInterval runs a function periodically, setTimeout only once.
Also note that the delayed code must be a function (or a string which will be evaluated, but better avoid that). However, document.getElementById("generateButton") returns an html element (or null).
This question already has answers here:
Why is setTimeout(fn, 0) sometimes useful?
(19 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have problem when using jQuery plugin tablesorter and I can't call trigger twice.
For example this won't work:
this._$table.trigger('update');
this._$table.trigger('sorton', [[[1,1]]]);
But this works:
this._$table.trigger('update');
setTimeout($.proxy(function() {
this._$table.trigger('sorton', [[[1,1]]]);
}, this), 1);
And then I see that problem was in trigger 'update', it call method with body:
function () {
var me = this;
setTimeout(function () {
// rebuild parsers.
me.config.parsers = buildParserCache(
me, $headers);
// rebuild the cache map
cache = buildCache(me);
}, 1);
}
Why did the tablesorter developer use setTimeout with one millisecond?
Short asnwer: Function execution queueing
This is the short answer to your question. setTimeout with either 0 or 1 millisecond is used for function execution queueing. Read on to find out why and how.
Javascript has single threaded execution
Javascript engine is a single threaded process. So whenever developers wanted to defer some function execution to get executed right after the current one that's just being executed, a setTimeout is being used to actually queue the next function... It doesn't have anything to do directly with events although functions may be event handlers. The only event in this equation is the timeout event that setTimeout creates.
This is an example of two functions where the first function during its execution queues a second function to be executed right after it.
function first()
{
// does whatever it needs to
// something else needs to be executed right afterwards
setTimeout(second, 1);
// do some final processing and exit
return;
}
function second()
{
// whatever needs to be done
}
So to javascript engine thread the execution queue looks like this:
first()
second()
Mind that this has nothing to do with function call stack.
Why 1ms?
1ms is a very short amount of time, which (almost) assures that your second function will get executed right after your first function returns. You may see sometimes even 0ms which actually executes it right after first function returns.
If one would on the other hand use longer time i.e. 100ms this could result in a different function getting executed in the meantime and that could have an undesired effect on the whole UI process.
Why function queueing in the first place?
Browsers nowadays prevent client side functionality to hang current browser session by observing long running functions. If a particular function runs long enough, browser Javascript execution engine will pause it and ask the user whether they want to terminate it (kill it) or wait for it to complete.
This is usually undesired effect when you actually do have a long running function. For instance imagine you have a function that has to loop through a large number of items processing each one during the process. You definitely don't want the user to terminate the process because the loop needs to execute.
What's the solution in this case? In such case instead of having a single function with loop and executing it, you'd rather have the loop (queueing) function that would then queue function calls for processing each item. This is just an outer skeleton of such functionality.
function queueItems(items) {
for(var i = 0; i < items.length, i++)
{
setTimeout((function(item) {
return function() {
processItem(item);
};
})(items[i]), 0);
}
}
function processItem(item) {
// process individual item
}
This way you'd prevent your functions to run too long and after each executed function control would get back to Javascript engine resetting its function-hang timer. But be aware that while your functions are being executed your UI will likely be unresponsive or at most unpredictable. It may be better to queue your function with some time space in between so UI stays responsive if that's desired.
It's an old hack. If an event needs to be triggered after another event you can use setTimeout with 1ms to make sure the event is triggered after the other event.
I think that since trigger('update') internally has a setTimeout, only by setting another setTimeout you can achieve the desired order of statement execution. If you don't call 'sorton' through setTimeout it will be executed before 'update'.
On the other hand I guess 'update' uses setTimeout for preventing 'update' from being a blocking function when it may take a long time to be executed.
My ASP.NET MVC page uses JavaScript/jQuery to poll my database every second.
This is working but I want to make sure that, if there is a delay, my timer handler won't get called again before it has returned.
In there any trick to this other than storing the timer ID in a global variable, clearing the timer in my handler, and restarting it when my handler is done.
NOTE: I realize every second seems frequent but this code is polling my server after submitting a credit card payment. Normally, it will only run for a second or so, and I don't want the user to wait any longer than necessary.
Polling every second? That's quite heavy!
That aside, you won't have this issue when setTimeout is used instead of setInterval. The latter ensures that a piece of code is run x times given a interval, while the former ensures that there's a delay of at least x milliseconds.
function some_poller() {
$.ajax({
url: '/some_page',
success: function() {
setTimeout(some_poller, 1000);
},
error: function() { // Also retry when the request fails
setTimeout(some_poller, 1000);
}
});
}
// Init somewhere
some_poller();
Not really, although I wouldn't recommend using a global variable. Stick it inside some function.
But are you really sure you need to poll every second? That's an extremely chatty interface.
In my personal experience a "global", (inside of the root function), variable works very well in this instance so that you can control when to clear and restart. If the response is really as quick as you say, this shouldn't cause too much overhead, (clearing/resetting), and will allow to account for these type of situations.