Using factory methods as alternative to passing anonymous functions - javascript

I was watching a video on node.js and I saw the speaker say, he prefers to do this instead of using anonymous call backs:
var server = Server.createServer(server.createReq(req,res));
I think its nice too that a named function with parameters can be passed instead of an anonymous function with closure.
Question 1: However the implementation of the createReq probably returns an anonymous function, wouldn't it?
How is this better? I can see it being better because unlike the closure at the createServer level, a closure at the createReq level is more contained - it would not store reference to other unnecessary variables (non req,res).
And as the speaker said, I guess this would help visualize realtionships better between the different parts of the code.
Question 2: Are there any other benefits?

A reason why you might want to call a function that returns a function may be that you are starting multiple servers within the same process, and you want them to share the same request handler.
Another thing to keep in mind is that each anonymous function must be allocated on the heap, and thus incurs some garbage collection overhead. By using a named function instead of an anonymous function, you can sometimes reduce this cost.
For example, maybe something like this untested and incomplete example:
var server = Server.createServer(handleRequest);
function handleRequest(req, res) {
new Client(req, res);
}
function Client(req, res) {
this.req = req;
this.res = res;
this.body = "";
req.on("data", function (chunk) {
self.onData(chunk);
});
}
Client.prototype.onData = function (chunk) {
this.body += chunk.toString();
};
This example uses a small anonymous function to bind the data event callbacks back to the specific instance of Client, but all other functions are named.

Related

Externalize a function in a Typescript method while maintaining closure

Reworded:
A common pattern is to pass callback functions, such as with Mongoose's save (just for example and simplified - no error handling):
someMethod(req:Request, res:Response){
document.save( function(err){ res.status(200).send({message: 'all good'})});
}
I'd like to externalize the callback. You can do this this way:
var respond = function(err:any, res:Response){
res.status(200).send({message: 'all good'});
}
someMethod(req:Request, res:Response){
document.save( function(err){ respond(err, res)});
}
...but ideally I'd like to do this by just passing a function like respond without having to create a call back function to enclose respond. I wanted to know if this is possible. Since the anonymous function has access to res, I thought there might be some way to gain access to res in a function defined externally. It appears there is not a way to do this so I'll live with wrapping it.
My original question was trying to isolate the specific issue I was interested in - which is to gain access to the caller's variables implicitly. Doesn't seem like that is possible. Fair enough.
Original Question:
I'd like to externalize a bit of code I use frequently and I'm having trouble understanding closure in the context of a Typescript method. Take a look:
var test = function(){
console.log("Testing external: "+JSON.stringify(this.req.body));
}
class Handler {
static post(req: Request, res: Response){
(function(){
console.log("TESTING anon: "+JSON.stringify(req.body));
}) ();
test();
}
}
Besides the fact that this does nothing useful, in this bit of code, the inline anonymous function has access to the req object, but the test() function does not. this in test is undefined. Removing this to match the inline function doesn't help.
I believe if I were to bind on this for the call I'd just end up with a reference to the Handler class when I really want to bind on the post method.
My motivation for doing this is that I want to make a function that can be passed as a callback to a bunch of different request handlers. When I write the functions inline it all works, but when I externalize it I can't get a closure over the variables in the enclosing method. I've read "You Don't Know JS: this & Object Prototypes", and in pure Javascript I can manage to make these sorts of things work but I'm obviously doing something wrong here (it may not be Typescript related, maybe I'm just messing it up).
So bottomline - is there a way I can externalize the handler and get access to the method variables as if I were writing it inline? I could just create an inline anonymous function as the callback that calls the external function with all the variables I need, but I want to really understand what is happening here.
This is not an answer, but will hopefully give me enough feedback to give you one because its not at all clear what you're actually trying to accomplish here and whether or not you actually understand what the terms mean is an open question since you use them correctly one minute and sketchily the next.
var test = function(){
console.log("Testing external: " + JSON.stringify(this.req.body));
}
In strict mode this will throw an error, in sloppy it will try to access the req property of the global object which is not likely what you want.
(function(){
console.log("TESTING anon: "+JSON.stringify(req.body));
}) ();
The IFFE wrapper is completely unnecessary, it literally adds nothing to the party. So why include it?
static post(req: Request, res: Response){
console.log("TESTING anon: "+JSON.stringify(req.body));
test(); // is this the spot where you are 'in-lining?'
}
What I think you want is this:
var test = function(reqBody) {
console.log("Testing external: " + JSON.stringify(reqBody));
};
class Handler {
static post(req: Request, res: Response) {
test(req.body);
}
}

proper function calling etiquette?

I may be wording this title wrong but in javascript is it ok to call a nested function like so, if not why and what are some safer or more proper ways
function foo() {
return function poo() {
console.log("ew");
}
}
var fooPoo = foo()();
Yes, that's fine, and fairly normal, if you want poo to have access to information that's private within foo and you don't want the calling code to have access to that information. Or even just if foo is what knows how to create the poo function, even if private information isn't needed.
It's relatively rare to do it all in one expression, because usually when you return a function from another function, you want to keep the function around:
var p = foo();
var fp1 = p();
var fp2 = p();
...but only relatively unusual, not unusual.
Here's an example of using the private information held by the context of the original call to the function (allocator, here, is like your foo):
function allocator(seed) {
return function() {
return seed++;
};
}
var a = allocator(1);
console.log(a()); // 1
console.log(a()); // 2
console.log(a()); // 3
Note that the code calling a can't manipulate seed directly. It can only call a and use the value it returns.
Yes, it as a functional technique referred to as currying. it allows you to set parameters for the function in different places in your code
function foo(param1) {
return function poo(param2) {
console.log(param1, param2);
}
}
var fooPoo = foo('param1')('param2');
A common thing I do is use currying for passing in settings when running event listeners to allow greater reuse of functions
function setColor(color) {
return function (e) {
e.target.background = color
}
}
someElement.addEventLister('click', setColor('red'))
Here you can pass in your configuration when declaring your event listener but it won't be called until later when the event is fired and due to the closure you will have access to the color variable within the event listener callback. But now that I know the technique I use it quite a bit

socket.io - emitting from within an anonymous function

I am quite new to the world of async. I am trying to do everything with callbacks at first before using any of the libraries out there. I think I have a closure problem, but don't know what to do about it.
Here is some code:
namespace.on('connection', function(socket){
var newClient = socket.id//just in case the a new user logged on between declaration and use
socket.join('room1')
function newConnection(positionCallback, hashCallback, newUser){
namespace.to(socket.id).emit('hello', {yo:'works'})
for(var i=0; i< cardCounter ;i++){
var keyVal = 'card:'+ cardArray[i]
redis.hgetall(keyVal, function (err, storedMsg) {
namespace.to(socket.id).emit('hello', {yo:'doesnt work'})
hashCallback(storedMsg, newUser)
});
if(i==cardCounter-1){
positionCallback()
}
}
}
function onConnectionComplete(){
namespace.to(socket.id).emit('hello', {yo:'works'})
}
function onHashComplete(hashObject, newUser){
namespace.to(newUser).emit('hello', {yo:'doesnt work'})
}
newConnection(onConnectionComplete, onHashComplete, newClient)
}
I have placed some socketio emits around the place to pinpoint where things go wrong.
Any emits outside of the call to redis work as expected. As soon as I go inside that anonymous function - nada.
That said, I have console.log()'ed everything inside that function. I get the right results from redis, I have the right user, and namespace is defined.
I just can't emit the result.
I would have thought that the anonymous function had access to the scope just outside it - but not the other way around. I don't see what is not making it across...
Also I know that some people don't like the if statement to invoke a callback, but that might be a discussion for another day.
It was a closure problem! Just not what I was expecting.
I also, ahem, don't really understand it.
The callback isn't the problem, getting variables accessible inside the redis response function is. I would have thought that any variables declared in a parent/ancestor function are available to children/decedent functions.
In this instance I needed to create a function inside the loop, and explicitly pass variables for it to be available inside a closure.
Here is the stackoverflow question that pointed me in the right direction:
How can I access the key passed to hgetall when using node_redis?

Updating parameters to JavaScript callback before it returns, without using globals

I'm working on making a modification to a node.js module to improve error handling for one of my uses cases. The specifics of the module aren't really relevant, but one of the things I want to do is trigger a delayed retry when receiving a certain status code from the response to an API request. To do this I'm using the timeOut function to trigger a new call to the function after a period of time.
The structure of the code looks like this:
Outer function (parameters specified by client application)
——API request (using parameters)
——Callback from API request (response with status code)
——If error, set timeout to call outer function after delay
However, I also want to handle the case that the outer function is called again while waiting for the timeout. I don't want any calls to trigger a new API request while a timeout is pending, but I do want the parameters from the most recent call to be used when the timeout finishes.
I've been able to get this working using variables that are global to the module. Each time a new call comes in to the outer function it updates a global object with the new parameters then, if a timeout is pending, returns without calling the API request. The timeout function uses the parameters from the global object to call the outer function, rather than the parameters from when it was set. This way it always uses the most recent values that were passed into the outer function, but doesn't make duplicate API calls.
Here's a simplified example of how I've achieved this behavior with global variables: JSFiddle. Hit run a few times until you get a "failure response" which then triggers the timeout.
This works, but I would prefer not add these global variables into the module if there's a better way.
Is there any way to get this same behavior but have all of the state encapsulated in the outer function without using globals? I'm also open to completely rethinking the way I'm handling this if anyone has ideas.
You're not going to be able to do this without creating variables outside of your outer function, however it's still possible to create those variables without polluting your global scope.
To do so, wrap your outer function in another function that gets executed immediately, sometimes known as an IIFE:
mainFunction: (function() {
var savedParam1;
var savedParam2;
var savedParam3;
var pendingTimeout = false;
return function(param1, param2, param3) {
savedParam1 = param1;
savedParam2 = param2;
savedParam3 = param3;
if (pendingTimeout) {
log('pending timeout -- ignoring new call');
return;
}
/* and so on */
}
})(); // the () causes the outer function to run immediately,
// which creates a scope for the savedParam / pendingTimeout variables,
// and then returns the inner function (your old outer function)
// to be used for mainFunction

asynchronous JavaScript static function variable

I have a problem with a "static" function in javascrip (nodejs server).
User.create = function(data, _callback){
var node = db.createNode(data);
var _user = new User(node);
_user.save(function(err){
if(err) return callback(err, null);
_user.index(function(err){
if(err) return callback(err, null);
callback(null, _user);
})
})
};
If I call this function twice the _user variable in the internal callback function takes the new value, it seems it overrides the function var instead of allocate a new one.
I need calling this function to allocate a new variable, so it waits save and index functions to complete without changing _user variable.
JavaScript variables are indeed function scoped, so there wouldn't be any explanation for var _user not defining a new variable on subsequent runs.
Looking at the code, I would be more suspicious of what's happening in your User constructor - perhaps it contains some scoping or other logical issues resulting in identical users being created on subsequent calls. Similar "suspects" would be the data parameter getting passed in, as well as db.createNode(). Only suggesting these areas, because it's more likely that there's a programmatic issue at play, rather than JavaScript not following the rules :)
Also, I noticed that your User.create function accepts a parameter called _callback, but later on is invoking callback. I don't know if that's a typo in your example, or if you're accidentally invoking a callback from a higher scope not shown in the example, but that could produce weird behavior.

Categories