Your example works for me.
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 8:15:09 PM UTC-8, Aaron Martone wrote:
Sorry in advance, I've been at this problem for 6 days now and have failed
at every single turn on what I need to do. I simply cannot afford to waste
more time, so I'm asking for help.
My
I might be missing the purpose of your factory, but maybe you can just
implement it like this:
function PluginFactory() {
//
}
exports.PluginFactory = new PluginFactory();
As long as you don't mess with the require cache, I think that would
effectively be a singleton. Maybe there are
().
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:12:35 AM UTC-7, Bryan Donovan wrote:
Thanks Scott.
That's basically what I had gathered from googling around. It seems to me
like it's not necessary to wrap in nextTick for most cases then.
On Aug 20, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Scott González scott.g...@gmail.com wrote
On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Isaac Schlueter i...@izs.me wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Bryan Donovan brdono...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, I just wanted to make sure my understanding was correct in that
there really is no problem with the specific case I presented
Yeah, I really dislike this pattern. It's confusing at best. I never
understood the reason for designing an API this way. I suspect it has
something to do with emitting events, like in the http module.
On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Paul pseld...@gmail.com wrote:
That means never doing
Thanks for the post, Isaac. Very helpful.
I totally understand the logic of being consistent -- I'm known to be ruthless
about consistency at work. I'm changing my public node.js libraries to use
nextTick() instead of calling back immediately.
However, I'm still unsure of when someone would
That's not the same situation though. What bad can happen in my most recent
example?
On Aug 29, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Scott González scott.gonza...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Bryan Donovan brdono...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I'm still unsure of when someone would ever
.
Nobody is denying that. But it's irrelevant if it's also possible to
construct situations that do have problems.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Bryan Donovan brdono...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not the same situation though. What bad can happen in my most recent
example?
On Aug 29, 2013
order of a callback is unnecessary in most cases, so
it's an overhead that should be avoided by default.
3) Definitely DO NOT use nextTick for error handling code, because it throws
away the stack information for nothing.
-Chaoran
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:47:22 PM UTC-5, Bryan Donovan
This is certainly only way I've ever programmed in node.js. I really don't like
APIs like this:
var client = connect(function() {
client.do_something(function() {
//..
});
});
… they're just weird. This makes a lot more sense to me:
González scott.gonza...@gmail.com wrote:
The success case is synchronous. It looks like there's nothing that ever
needs to be async in that function. Why does this take a callback instead of
just returning a boolean?
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Bryan Donovan brdono...@gmail.com
put the success case inside a nextTick() as well, but then you're taking an
unnecessary hit everywhere, not just on error.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Bryan Donovan brdono...@gmail.com wrote:
Because the calling code calls back with the error (e.g.,
https://github.com/BryanDonovan
. IMO.
On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 19:47:22 UTC+2, Bryan Donovan wrote:
I have been writing node.js client code for a couple of years now, and have
authored a couple open source libraries, but somehow I missed the memo
telling me that I'm supposed to wrap 'synchrounous' callbacks
someone uses them in a strange way.
Thanks again,
Bryan
On Aug 21, 2013, at 5:33 AM, Scott González scott.gonza...@gmail.com wrote:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nodejs/FNsM6Ns1MkE/4Ys-l1RI0Q0J
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Bryan Donovan brdono...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks
I have been writing node.js client code for a couple of years now, and have
authored a couple open source libraries, but somehow I missed the memo
telling me that I'm supposed to wrap 'synchrounous' callbacks in
process.nextTick(). I kind-of understand why that is a best-practice, but
what I
, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Bryan Donovan brdono...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been writing node.js client code for a couple of years now, and have
authored a couple open source libraries, but somehow I missed the memo
telling me that I'm supposed to wrap 'synchrounous' callbacks in
process.nextTick(). I
What does svr.login() look like?
On May 17, 2012, at 4:50 AM, Osher El-Netanany wrote:
Hi all
I'm trying to use nodeunit for asynchronous testing,
my code is like:
var svr = require(mysvr)
;
svr.listen(5353);
module.exports =
{ login:
function(is) {
svr.login( {
Seems like you could use
http://benchmarkjs.com/
and pass in mock/fake objects to the handler functions.
Sent from an iPhone.
On Apr 22, 2012, at 9:41 AM, jason.桂林 guil...@gmail.com wrote:
I am writing a project named 'kickstart' aim to create high performance web
APP template (not view
P.s., if you write unit tests for this same code, I think the answer will
emerge on its own :). I personally like mocha for tests.
Sent from an iPhone.
On Apr 22, 2012, at 9:41 AM, jason.桂林 guil...@gmail.com wrote:
I am writing a project named 'kickstart' aim to create high performance web
19 matches
Mail list logo
