问题
I have a webpage, in which a certain Ajax event is triggered asynchronously. This Ajax section could be called once or more than once. I do not have control over the number of times this event is triggered, nor the timing.
Also, there is a certain code in that Ajax section that should run as a critical section, meaning, when it is running, no other copy of that code should be running.
Here is a pseudo code:
- Run JavaScript or jQuery code
- Enter critical section that is Ajax (when a certain process is waiting for a response callback, then do not enter this section again, until this process is done)
- Run more JavaScript or jQuery code
My question is, how can I run step 2 the way described above? How do I create/guarantee a mutual exclusion section using JavaScript or jQuery.
I understand the theory (semaphores, locks, ...etc.), but I could not implement a solution using either JavaScript or jQuery.
EDIT
In case you are suggesting a Boolean variable to get into the critical section, this would not work, and the lines below will explain why.
the code for a critical section would be as follows (using the Boolean variable suggestions):
load_data_from_database = function () {
// Load data from the database. Only load data if we almost reach the end of the page
if ( jQuery(window).scrollTop() >= jQuery(document).height() - jQuery(window).height() - 300) {
// Enter critical section
if (window.lock == false) {
// Lock the critical section
window.lock = true;
// Make Ajax call
jQuery.ajax({
type: 'post',
dataType: 'json',
url: path/to/script.php,
data: {
action: 'action_load_posts'
},
success: function (response) {
// First do some stuff when we get a response
// Then we unlock the critical section
window.lock = false;
}
});
// End of critical section
}
}
};
// The jQuery ready function (start code here)
jQuery(document).ready(function() {
var window.lock = false; // This is a global lock variable
jQuery(window).on('scroll', load_data_from_database);
});
Now this is the code for the lock section as suggested using a Boolean variable. This would not work as suggested below:
The user scrolls down, (and based on the association
jQuery(window).on('scroll', load_data_from_database);more than one scroll event is triggered.Assume two scroll events are triggered right at almost the same moment
Both call the
load_data_from_databasefunctionThe first event checks if
window.lockis false (answer is true, so if statement is correct)The second event checks if
window.lockis false (answer is true, so if statement is correct)The first event enters the if statement
The second event enters the if statement
The first statement sets
window.lockto trueThe second statement sets
window.lockto trueThe first statement runs the Ajax critical section
The second statement runs the Ajax critical section.
Both finish the code
As you notice, both events are triggered almost at the same time, and both enter the critical section. So a lock is not possible.
回答1:
I think the most helpful information you provided above was your analysis of the locking.
The user scrolls down, (and based on the association
jQuery(window).on('scroll', load_data_from_database);more than one scroll event is triggered.Assume two scroll events are triggered right at almost the same moment
Both call the
load_data_from_databasefunctionThe first event checks if
window.lockis false (answer is true, so if statement is correct)The second event checks if
window.lockis false (answer is true, so if statement is correct)
Right away this tells me that you have come to a common (and quite intuitive) misunderstanding.
Javascript is asynchronous, but asynchronous code is not the same thing as concurrent code. As far as I understand, "asynchronous" means that a function's subroutines aren't necessarily explored in depth-first order as we would expect in synchronous code. Some function calls (the ones you are calling "ajax") will be put in a queue and executed later. This can lead to some confusing code, but nothing is as confusing as thinking that your async code is running concurrently. "Concurrency" (as you know) is when statements from different functions can interleave with one another.
Solutions like locks and semaphores are not the right way to think about async code. Promises are the right way. This is the stuff that makes programming on the web fun and cool.
I'm no promise guru, but here is a working fiddle that (I think) demonstrates a fix.
load_data_from_database = function () {
// Load data from the database. Only load data if we almost reach the end of the page
if ( jQuery(window).scrollTop() >= jQuery(document).height() - jQuery(window).height() - 300) {
console.log(promise.state());
if (promise.state() !== "pending") {
promise = jQuery.ajax({
type: 'post',
url: '/echo/json/',
data: {
json: { name: "BOB" },
delay: Math.random() * 10
},
success: function (response) {
console.log("DONE");
}
});
}
}
};
var promise = new $.Deferred().resolve();
// The jQuery ready function (start code here)
jQuery(document).ready(function() {
jQuery(window).on('scroll', load_data_from_database);
});
I'm using a global promise to ensure that the ajax part of your event handler is only called once. If you scroll up and down in the fiddle, you will see that while the ajax request is processing, new requests won't be made. Once the ajax request is finished, new requests can be made again. With any luck, this is the behaviour you were looking for.
However, there is a pretty important caveats to my answer: jQuery's implementation of promises is notoriously broken. This isn't just something that people say to sound smart, it is actually pretty important. I would suggest using a different promise library and mixing it with jQuery. This is especially important if you are just starting to learn about promises.
EDIT: On a personal note, I was recently in the same boat as you. As little as 3 months ago, I thought that some event handlers I was using were interleaving. I was stupefied and unbelieving when people started to tell me that javascript is single-threaded. What helped me is understanding what happens when an event is fired.
In syncronous coding, we are used to the idea of a "stack" of "frames" each representing the context of a function. In javascript, and other asynchronous programming environments, the stack is augmented by a queue. When you trigger an event in your code, or use an asynchronous request like that $.ajax call, you push an event to this queue. The event will be handled the next time that the stack is clear. So for example, if you have this code:
function () {
this.on("bob", function () { console.log("hello"); })
this.do_some_work();
this.trigger("bob");
this.do_more_work();
}
The two functions do_some_work and do_more_work will fire one after the other, immediately. Then the function will end and the event you enqueued will start a new function call, (on the stack) and "hello" will appear in the console. Things get more complicated if you trigger an event in your handler, or if you trigger and event in a subroutine.
This is all well and good, but where things start to get really crappy is when you want to handle an exception. The moment you enter asynchronous land, you leave behind the beautiful oath of "a function shall return or throw". If you are in an event handler, and you throw an exception, where will it be caught? This,
function () {
try {
$.get("stuff", function (data) {
// uh, now call that other API
$.get("more-stuff", function (data) {
// hope that worked...
};
});
} catch (e) {
console.log("pardon me?");
}
}
won't save you now. Promises allow you to take back this ancient and powerful oath by giving you a way to chain your callbacks together and control where and when they return. So with a nice promises API (not jQuery) you chain those callbacks in a way that lets you bubble exceptions in the way you expect, and to control the order of execution. This, in my understanding, is the beauty and magic of promises.
Someone stop me if I'm totally off.
回答2:
I would recommend a queue which only allows one item to be running at a time. This will require some modification (though not much) to your critical function:
function critical(arg1, arg2, completedCallback) {
$.ajax({
....
success: function(){
// normal stuff here.
....
// at the end, call the completed callback
completedCallback();
}
});
}
var queue = [];
function queueCriticalCalls(arg1, arg2) {
// this could be done abstractly to create a decorator pattern
queue.push([arg1, arg2, queueCompleteCallback]);
// if there's only one in the queue, we need to start it
if (queue.length === 1) {
critical.apply(null, queue[0]);
}
// this is only called by the critical function when one completes
function queueCompleteCallback() {
// clean up the call that just completed
queue.splice(0, 1);
// if there are any calls waiting, start the next one
if (queue.length !== 0) {
critical.apply(null, queue[0]);
}
}
}
UPDATE: Alternative solution using jQuery's Promise (requires jQuery 1.8+)
function critical(arg1, arg2) {
return $.ajax({
....
});
}
// initialize the queue with an already completed promise so the
// first call will proceed immediately
var queuedUpdates = $.when(true);
function queueCritical(arg1, arg2) {
// update the promise variable to the result of the new promise
queuedUpdates = queuedUpdates.then(function() {
// this returns the promise for the new AJAX call
return critical(arg1, arg2);
});
}
Yup, the Promise of cleaner code was realized. :)
回答3:
You can wrap the critical section in a function and then swap the function so it does nothing after first run:
// this function does nothing
function noop() {};
function critical() {
critical = noop; // swap the functions
//do your thing
}
Inspired by user @I Hate Lazy Function in javascript that can be called only once
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22150960/critical-section-in-javascript-or-jquery