Anyone can tell me how to activate two (or more) JavaScript AJAX functions in parallel?
This is not possible. Javascript can only work in a single thread and there is no way to actually have two functions running in parallel. You need to make one call and then the other. The callbacks of these will be called (not necessarily in the same order with the invocation methods), when data have been returned or an error/timeout occurs. Only when one callback completes, will the second one be allowed to run.
Have also in mind that browsers restrict the number of active ajax calls. So, if you try to make too many ajax calls, one might wait (blocking all javascript code) for other calls to complete.
Search for Web Workers. These are kind of a new feature in modern browsers and may not be available in old ones.
Is this what you're looking for?
setTimeout('JsFunction1(val);', 0);
setTimeout('JsFunction2(val);', 0);
use Web Workers to run tasks in Parallel
You can a tutorial here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers_API/Using_web_workers
Also, this library, which takes advantage of web workers, came up pretty fast on google: https://parallel.js.org/
Using several 'setInterval' may make parallel running possible, though it may still run on a single core. The following code is an example of parallelizing a function func with an array of data 'datas'. To run it, use Parallel(func,datas) where func is the name of your global function and datas is an array of data each one as an input for func.
var i_array=new Array();
function Parallel(func,datas){
$(datas).each(function(i,v){
i_array[i]=setInterval(function(){
clearInterval(i_array[i]);
window[func](datas[i]);
},10);
});
}
Here is a jsfiddle test. The time stamp in integer numbers show the two ajax were running in parallel.
Use window.open() to call a new page. That page will call the first js function. After window.open() calls the second function, you are not technically waiting for the first function to complete. You just wait for the window.open() to execute and then the second will get execute.
Javascript runs as a single thread, if the requests that you want to make doesn't have an IO, In that case its just not possible, if there's an IO operation involved, you can very well execute the two functions one after the other, the very nature of javascript will start executing the next function when it waits for IO.
Usually in languages that support threading the same thing is achieved automatically during the CPU rest period for a thread.
Related
I just read an article about the event loop in JavaScript.
I found two contradictive phrases and I would be glad if someone could clarify.
A downside of this model is that if a message takes too long to
complete, the web application is unable to process user interactions
like click or scroll. The browser mitigates this with the "a script is
taking too long to run" dialog
A very interesting property of the event loop model is that
JavaScript, unlike a lot of other languages, never blocks. Handling
I/O is typically performed via events and callbacks, so when the
application is waiting for an IndexedDB query to return or an XHR
request to return, it can still process other things like user input
So, when is the first one true and when is the second one true?
"A very interesting property of the event loop model is that
JavaScript, unlike a lot of other languages, never blocks.
This is misleading. Without clever programming, JavaScript would always block the UI thread, because runtime logic always blocks the UI, by design. At a smooth sixty frames a second, that means your application logic must always cooperatively yield control (or simply complete execution) within about 16 milliseconds, otherwise your UI will freeze or stutter.
Because of this, most JavaScript APIs that might take a long time (eg. network requests) are designed in such a way to use techniques (eg callbacks, promises) to circumvent this problem, so that they do not block the event loop, avoiding the UI becoming unresponsive.
Put another way: host environments (eg a Web browser or a Node.js runtime instance) are specifically designed to enable the use of an event-based programming model (originally inspired by programming environments like Hypercard on the Mac) whereby the host environment can be asked to perform a long-running task (eg run a timer), without blocking the main thread of execution, and for your program to be notified later, via an "event" when the long-running task is complete, enabling your program to pick-up where it left-off.
Both are correct, even though I agree it is somewhat wrongly expressed.
So by points:
It's true that if a synchronous task takes too long to complete, the event loop "gets stuck" there and then all other queued tasks can't run till it finishes.
Here it is talking about asynchronous tasks so even though an HTTP request, an I/O request or whatever that is async takes too long to process, all the synchronous tasks can keep doing their job, like processing user input
There are two types of code inside Javascript
Synchronous (it's like going one by one).
Asynchronous (it's like skipping for the future)
Synchronous code
You want to find the prime number from 1 to 10000000 with synchronous code you will write a function and that function will perform the calculation and finds out the prime number in the given range but what will happen with synchronous code. The javascript engine is not able to do any task until that task gets finished.
Asynchronous Code
If you wrap the same code inside a callback or more friendly with the SetTimeout method the javascript put that function inside the event queue and perform the other operation when a certain time came the timeout method fires callback certainly when there is nothing inside the call stack, it will ask event loop to pass the first thing which is inside the event queue. So this more about finding an idle time to perform the heavy operation.
Use javascript workers to perform heavy mathematics tasks not
SetTimeout because eventually, it will block the engine when the
function is inside the call stack.
I built a nodejs application that should execute several tasks.
My app.js has a function call to the manager module which controls those tasks.
I want to call that function from my app.js and perform those tasks every 30s.
something like:
setInterval(manager.tasks(), 30000);
My question is that if using setInterval could give me any performance problems (slowing down the computer, blocking resources or any other reason)
Is there a more efficient way to do this or is setInterval ok?
it depends on how heavy the work/processing you want to do is, setInterval is async so your code will only be run once every 30 seconds, but at the same time JavaScript is single-threaded, so if you're doing a lot of work in your task, the one time it runs in 30 seconds it may take too long to execute thus blocking resources.
In most cases you should be fine using setInterval, but if you really want to emulate multi-threading or if you're doing too much work in your task, you may want to spawn another child process https://nodejs.org/api/child_process.html process or use the new Worker Threads API https://nodejs.org/api/worker_threads.html instead, but keep in mind its not as simple to implement as a setInterval call
Use node-cron or node-schedule instead
setInterval is implemented in standard node js, you won't have any performance / blocking problems, most libraries also use setInterval
It completely depends on the function you executing inside setInterval. If it is I/O bound operation then you don't need to worry too much because libuv will handle itself But if it is CPU bound then I will suggest you to use child_process api to fork a new child process and do your stuff in to that.
I'm new to NodeJS and am having a little trouble understanding what types of actions/tasks are executed asynchronously vs. synchronously. The specific example that I was working through was splitting a string.
I was trying to count the number of new lines in a block of text and then print that out. The below example worked. However, I'm not entirely clear why. My basic (and likely flawed) understanding is that anything that takes time is executed asynchronously (e.g. I/O), but I don't know what types of actions count as "taking time". Does the Split() method "take time"? It has to loop through the contents of a string, and if the string is abnormally long, this could take a while, why does this execute synchronously then or is it just that the split method blocks?
My question here is specific to the split method, but if anyone could also talk about or point me in the direction of some documentation that explains what gets executed synchronously vs asynchronously, it'd really appreciated!
var array = "test\nstring\nexample".split("\n");
console.log(array.length-1);
Most operations in JavaScript itself are synchronous. The exceptions include the obvious ones such as setTimeout(), setInterval(), requestAnimationFrame(), etc. Also just because you pass in a callback does not mean the function is asynchronous (for example see some of the array methods, like array.forEach(), array.map(), array.filter(), array.some(), etc.).
Node.js (core), which builds on top of JavaScript (via the v8 engine), adds its own synchronous and asynchronous methods. However fairly early on it was decided to distinguish between the two by way of an easily visible Sync suffix to functions that perform synchronously. However, similar to JavaScript, there are some exceptions (e.g. require()). It should also be noted that userland modules (on npm for example) may have their own convention (or none at all), so for those third party modules you will need to read the documentation to be sure of the behavior of their exported functions.
Essentially JavaScript is single threaded. The best advice is to assume it is single threaded unless something suggests otherwise.
Functions that aren't synchronous tend to accept a callback parameter to be executed. Examples of these would be a jQuery.ajax call or the setTimeout function.
Is it possibly to do things asynchronously in javascript (AJAX aside)? For example, to iterate multiple arrays at the same time. How is it done? A brief example would be nice. Searching for this was hard, due to all the ajax pollution, which is not what I am looking for.
Thanks in advance.
Use web Workers. But remember that it is a very new feature and not all browsers are fully supported.
You could use setTimeout.
setTimeout(function () { iterateArray(array1); reportDone(1); }, 0);
setTimeout(function () { iterateArray(array2); reportDone(2); }, 0);
I'm not sure how concurrent it will be, but it is an asynchronous programming model.
As stated by Grumdrig you can write code like this:
setTimeout(function () { iterateArray(array1); reportDone(1); }, 0);
setTimeout(function () { iterateArray(array2); reportDone(2); }, 0);
But it will still not run concurrently. Here's a general idea of what happens after such timeouts are called:
Any code after the setTimeout calls will be run immediately, including returns to calling functions.
If there are other timers in queue that are at or past their delay or interval time, they will be executed one at a time.
While any timer is running, another might hit its interval/delay time, but it will not be run until the last one is finished.
Some browsers give priority to events fired from user interaction such as onclick and onmousemove, in which case the functions attached to those events will execute at the expense of timer accuracy.
This will continue until there is an opening (no previously called timers or event handlers requesting execution). Only then will the functions in the example code be run. Again one at a time, with the first one likely but not certainly executing first. Also, I'm venturing a guess that some browsers might impose a minimum delay time, which would make any timers set with a delay of 0 milliseconds be run even later than expected.
Obviously there is no performance advantage to running code like this. In every case it will make things take longer to complete. However in cases where a single task is taking so long it freezes the browser (and possibly trips "Script is taking too long" browser warnings), it can be helpful to break it up into smaller faster executing pieces that run sequentially after some delay time, thus giving the browser some time to breathe.
Web Workers have been mentioned, and if you are not concerned about IE compatibility then you can use them for true concurrency. However there are some severe limitations on their use imposed for security reasons. For one they cannot interact with the DOM in any way, meaning any changes to the page still must be done synchronously. Also all data passed to and from workers is serialized in transit, meaning true Javascript objects cannot be used. That being said, for intensive data processing, Web Workers are probably a better solution than breaking a function up into multiple timer delayed tasks.
One new development in this field is HTML5 Web Workers.
JavaScript is normally single threaded; you cannot do several things at once. If your JavaScript code is too slow, you will need to offload the work. The new way is to use web workers, as others have noted. The old way is often to use AJAX and do the work on the server instead. (Either with web workers or with AJAX, the arrays would have to be serialized and the result deserialized)
I have to agree with MooGoo, i also wonder why you would run through such a big array in one go.
There's an extension to JavaScript called StratifiedJS, it allows you do multiple things at once as long as they're asynchronous. Also, webworkers are an awkward "solution" that just make things more complicated, also, they don't work in IE.
In StratifiedJS you could just write.
waitfor {
// do something long lasting here...
}
and {
// do something else at the same time...
}
// and when you get here, both are done
Well, first I want to say I'm a bit new in the world of Internet dev.
Anyway, I'm trying to know if its possible to run two pieces of code in parallel using javascript.
What I really need is to call two methods that are in a remote server. I pass, for both, a callback function that will be executed soon the data I want is ready. As the server running these functions take a time to answer, I'm trying to find a way to call both methods at the same time without need to wait till the first finishes to call the second.
Does methods like setTimeout run concurrently, for example
setTimeout(func1, 0);
setTimeout(func2, 0);
...
function func1()
{
webMethod1(function() {alert("function 1 returned"); } );
}
function func1()
{
webMethod2(function() {alert("function 2 returned"); } );
}
Edited
I've just found this article that may be very cool for the realease of next browsers: Javascript web workers
There is one single thread of execution in Javascript in normal WebBrowsers: your timer handlers will be called serially. Your approach using timers will work in the case you present.
There is a nice piece of documentation on timers by John Resig (author of the very popular jQuery javascript framework - if you are new to Web development, I would suggest you look it up).
Now, if you are referring to HTML5 based browsers, at some point, they should have threading support.
Yes, that's exactly how web requests through AJAX work. No need to setTimeout to 0, you can just call them one by one, and make an AJAX request, and it'll be executed asynchronously, allowing you to pass a callback function to be invoked when the request completes.
The means of creating an AJAX request differs some depending on what browser you're running. If you're going to build something that depends considerably upon AJAX, and you want it to work across multiple browsers, you're best off with a library. Here's how it's done in jQuery, for instance:
$.ajax({ url: '/webrequesturl', success: function(result) {
// this will be called upon a successful request
} });
$.ajax({ url: '/webrequest2url', success: function(result) {
// this will be called upon a successful request
// this may or may not be called before the above one, depending on how long it takes for the requests to finish.
} });
Well, JavaScript is single-threaded, the two timers will run sequentially one after the other, even if you don't notice it.
I would recommend you to give a look to the following article, it really explains how timers and asynchronous events work, it will also help you to understand the single-threaded nature of JavaScript:
How JavaScript Timers Work
And as an alternative you could give a look to WebWorkers, is a way to run scripts in separate background threads, but they are only supported by modern browsers.
What you are looking for is asynchronous client-server communication (keyword: async). Asynchronous functions return straight away, but the provided callback will be executed after the specified condition is satisfied.
So, if the function that sends a request to the server is asynchronous, this would let you send both requests to the server without waiting for one to respond.
Using setTimeout may work, as this will schedule both request-sending functions to be called. However, some browsers only run one thread of Javascript at a time, so the result would be that one of the scheduled functions would run and block (waiting for a reply) and the other scheduled function would wait until the first was done to start running.
It is advisable to use async support from your server communication library. For instance jQuery uses async by default.
It depends on the JavaScript engine.