I'm developing a 'widget', for lack of a better word, that will be loaded in many different sites that I don't control.
We're using RequireJS to keep things easy, but this has the side effect of breaking A LOT of sites that don't already use/support it.
The be clear - we don't control the sites, and the cause is that many of the sites existing libraries are loading into RequireJS instead of globally, and the code on these sites expects them to be loaded globally.
The only practical solution I can think of so far is to rename RequireJS' require() and define() (and perhaps others), then edit every library we rely on (using sed, of course) to load using the 'new' functions.
Has anyone else dealt with this? Is there a better method I'm missing?
Michael
For anyone who stumbles upon this, here's what I ended up doing...
There isn't a good solution for this at the moment as:
1) All libraries that load into RequireJS need define() to exist in their scope at execution time
and
2) There isn't any mechanism for asynchronously loading scripts that would allow define to be defined (pun not intended) and undefined before/after execution, aside from eval(), and that's just not a good option.
This means that, it's not really possible to have some type of scoped RequireJS without it possibly interfering with other scripts on-page that CAN use RequireJS, but are intended to load globally on that particular site.
So... here's the hacky solution I did...
Instead of loading the JS libraries myself, I bundled them on the fly, along with RequireJS, and wrapped in an immediately executing function.
The reason for doing this on-the-fly, is that some site specific data is necessary for the program to function, and it saves an HTTP request to obtain it (at the expense of a larger file download).
This allowed me to:
1) Use libraries that need to run under RequireJS (or similar) to work property
2) Avoid cluttering up the global namespace for stuff like jQuery
3) Avoid editing library source (eg. changing define() to my_special_define() or similar)
I hope this helps someone if they're trying to do the same thing as me :)
I have a very basic sitemap scraper built in Python 3 using requests and lxml. The aim is to build a database of the URLs of a certain website. Currently the way it works is the following: for each top-level sitemap to be scraped, I trigger a celery task. In this task, the sitemap is parsed to check whether it's a sitemapindex or a urlset. Sitemapindexes point to other sitemaps hierarchically, whereas urlsets point to end urls - they're like the leafs in the tree.
If the sitemap is identified as a sitemapindex, each URL it contains, which points to a sub-sitemap, is processed in a separate thread, repeating the process from the beginning.
If the sitemap is identified as a urlset, the URLs within are stored in the database and this branch finishes.
I've been reading about coroutines, asyncio, gevent, async/await, etc and I'm not sure if my problem is suitable to be developed using these technologies or whether performance would be improved.
As far as I've read, corroutines are useful when dealing with IO operations in order to avoid blocking the execution while the IO operation is running. However, I've also read that they're inherently single-threaded, so I understand there's no parallelization when, e.g., the code starts parsing the XML response from the IO operation.
So esentially the questions are, how could I implement this using coroutines/asyncio/insert_similar_technology? and would I benefit from it performance-wise?
Edit: by the way, I know Twisted has a specialized SitemapSpider, just in case anyone suggests using it.
Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand how your code works, but here some thoughts:
Does your program downloads multiple urls?
If yes, asyncio can be used to reduce time your program waiting for network I/O. If not, asyncio wouldn't help you.
How does your program download urls?
If one-by-one, then asyncio can help you to grab them much faster. On other hand if you're already grabbing them parallely (with different threads, for example), you wouldn't get much benefit from asyncio.
I advice you to read my answer about asyncio here. It's short and it can help you to understand why and when to use asynchronous code.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm investigating building a web app in part with Koa, but I don't quite have a handle on the hows, whens, and whys of choosing between - and applying - the range of supportive "making async easier" technologies/approaches (listed below).
Overall the disparate guidance on the web about this subject still leaves things blurry, especially in respect to evolving best practices, or at least better ones, and under what scenarios. There seems to be little or nothing on the web that puts it all in context.
I'm hoping the responses to this big arse sprawling post can correct that. Also maybe the questions below can inspire someone to write a thorough blog post or the like to address this matter. My sense is I'm not even close to the only one who would benefit from that.
So I'd be pleased if the bright community could help answer and provide clarity to the following questions in respect to the technologies listed below (in bold type):
-- a) How, and under what circumstance (as applicable) are they complements, supplements, substitutes, and/or overlapping solutions to one another?
-- b) What are their trade-offs in respect to speed-performance, error handling ease, and debugging ease?
-- c) When, where, and why may it be better to use "this" versus "that" technology, technologies-combo, and/or approach?
-- d) Which technologies or approaches, if any, may be "dimming stars".
(Hoping that the opinions that are part of answers can be well explained.)
==============================
Technologies:
* Koa *
My understanding:
Koa is a minimal foundation for build Node apps geared for taking advantage of ECMAScript-6 features, one feature in particular being generators.
* Co *
My understanding:
-- Co is a library of utilites for running ECMAScript-6 generators (which are native to Node .011 harmony), with the goal to allieve some/much(?) of the need to write boilerplate code for running and managing generators.
-- Co is intrinsically part of Koa(?).
Specific questions:
-- If and how does one use Co differently in Koa than in a non-Koa context. In other words, does Koa wholly facade Co?
-- Could Co be replaced in Koa with some other like generator library if there is/was a better one? Are there any?
* Promise Libraries such as "Q" and Bluebird *
My understanding:
-- They are in a sense "polyfills" for implmententing the Promises/A+ spec, if and until Node natively runs that spec.
-- They have some further non-spec convenience utilities for facilitating the use promises, such as Bluebird's promisfyAll utility.
Specific questions:
-- My understanding is the ECMAScript-6 spec does/will largely reflect the Promises/A+ spec, but even so, Node 0.11v harmony does not natively implement Promises. (Is this correct?) However when it does, will technologies such as Q and Bluebird be on their way out?
-- I've read something to the effect that "Q" and Bluebird support generators. What does this mean? Does it mean in part that, for example, they to some degree provided the same utility as Co, and if so to what degree?
* Thunks and Promises *
I think I have an fair handle on what they are, but hoping someone can provide a succinct and clear "elevator pitch" definition on what each is, and of course, as asked above, to explain when to use one versus the other -- in a Koa context and not in it.
Specific questions:
-- Pro and cons to using something like Bluebird's promisfy, versus say using Thunkify (github com/visionmedia/node-thunkify)?
==============================
To give some further context to this post and its questions, it might be interesting if Koa techniques presented in the following webpages could be discussed and contrasted (especiallly on a pros vs cons basis):
-- a) www.marcusoft . net/2014/03/koaintro.html (Where's the thunks or promises, or am I not seeing something?)
-- b) strongloop . com/strongblog/node-js-express-introduction-koa-js-zone (Again, where's the thunks or promises?)
-- c) github . com/koajs/koa/blob/master/docs/guide.md (What does the "next" argument equate to, and what set it and where?)
-- d) blog.peterdecroos . com/blog/2014/01/22/javascript-generators-first-impressions (Not in a Koa context, but presents the use of Co with a promise library (Bluebird), so I'm assuming the technique/pattern presented here lends itself to usage in Koa(?). If so, then how well?
Thanks all!
I've been working almost extensively with generators for a month now so maybe I can take a stab at this. I'll try to keep the opinions to a minimum. Hopefully it helps clarify some of the confusion.
Part of the reason for the lack of best practices and better explanations is that the feature is still so new in javascript. There are still very few places that you can use generators node.js and firefox being the most prominent, though firefox deviates from the standard a bit.
I would like to note that there are tools like traceur and regenerator that will let you use them for development and allow you to turn them into semi-equivalent ES5 so if you find working with them enjoyable then there's no reason not to start using them unless you're targeting archaic browsers.
Generators
Generators weren't originally thought of as a way to handle asynchronous control flows but they work wonderfully at it. Generators are essentially iterator functions that allow their execution to be paused and resumed through the use of yield.
The yield keyword essentially says return this value for this iteration and I'll pick up where I left off when you call next() on me again.
Generator functions are special functions in that they don't execute the first time they're call but instead return an iterator object with a few methods on it and the ability to be used in for-of loops and array comprehensions.
send(),: This sends a value into the generator treating it as the last value of yield and continues the next iteration
next(),: This continues the next iteration of the generator
throw(): This throws an exception INTO the generator causing the generator to throw the exception as though it came from the last yield statement.
close(): This forces the generator to return execution and calls any finally code of the generator which allows final error handling to be triggered if needed.
Their ability to be paused and resumed is what makes them so powerful at managing flow control.
Co
Co was built around the ability of generators to make handling flow control easier. It doesn't support all of the things that you can do with generators but you can use most of them through it's usage with less boilerplate and headache. And for flow control purposes I haven't found that I needed anything outside of what co provides already. Although to be fair I haven't tried sending a value into a generator during flow control but that does bring up some interesting possibilities....
There are other generator libraries out there some of them that I can think of off the top of my head are suspend, and gen-run. I've tried them all and co offers the most flexibility. Suspend may be a little easier to follow if you're not accustomed to generators yet but I can't say that with authority.
As far as node and best practices go I'd say co is currently winning hands down with the amount of support tools that have been created to go with it. With suspend the most likely runner up.
Co works with both promises and thunks and they are used for yield statement so that co knows when to continue execution of the generator instead of you manually having to call next(). Co also supports the use of generators, generator functions, objects and arrays for further flow control support.
By yielding an array or an object you can have co perform parallel operations on all of the yielded items. By yielding to a generator or generator function co will delegate further calls to the new generator until it is completed and then resume calling next on the current generator, allowing you to effectively create very interesting flow control mechanisms with minimal boilerplate code.
Promises
While I said I'd keep opinions to a minimum I would like to state that to me promises are probably the hardest concept to grasp. They are a powerful tool for maintaining code but they are hard to grasp the inner workings of and can come with quite a few gotchas if used for advanced flow control.
The easiest way that I can think of to explain promises is that they are an object returned by a function that maintains the state of the function and a list of callbacks to call when the a specific state of the object is or has been entered into.
The promise libraries themselves won't be going anywhere anytime soon. They add a great deal of nice to haves for promises included done() which didn't make it into the ES6 spec. Not to mention the fact that the same libraries can be used on the browser and in node we'll have them for a good long while.
Thunks
Thunks are just functions that take a single parameter callback and return another function that they are wrapping.
This creates a closure that allows the calling code to instantiate the function passing in its callback so that it can be told when the method is complete.
Thunks are fairly straight forward to understand and use in my opinion but they aren't the right tool for everything. For example spawn is a major pain to create a thunk for, you can do it but it's not easy.
Thunks vs. Promises
These aren't mutually exclusive and can easily be used together, but it's usually better for your sanity to pick one and stick with it. Or at the very least pick a convention so you can easily tell which is which. Thunks run faster from my experience but I haven't benchmarked it. Most of this is probably because it's a smaller abstraction and doesn't have error handling mechanisms built in.
You'll usually be building something that requires error handling though so the overall performance gains of thunks could easily even out or side in the favor of promises depending on your code.
When to Use
Generators - When you can safely say that your application will be able to run on the bleeding edge, whether it's firefox only for the browser or node > 0.11.3
I've been using them extensively at the company I'm out now and couldn't be happier with the control flow mechanisms and lazy evaluation that they allow.
Promises vs. Thunks - This is really up to you and how comfortable you are working with each. They don't provide the same benefits nor do they solve the same problem. Promises help deal with the async problem directly, thunks just ensure a function takes the needed callback parameter for other code to pass in.
You can use them both together and as long as you can keep it so that it's obvious which is which you won't have a problem.
Promises/Thunks with Generators - I suggest doing this anytime you are using generators for control flow. It's not necessary but it's easier just like using co as an abstraction for control flow with generators is easier. Less code to type, easier maintenance, and less possibilities that you'll hit an edge case that somebody else hasn't run into yet.
Koa
I'm not going to go into a lot of detail on koa. Suffice it to say that is similar to express but written to take advantage of generators. This does give it some unique advantages such as easier error handling and cascading middleware. There were ways to accomplish all of these tasks before but they weren't elegant and sometimes not the most performant.
Special Note:
Generators open up a door of possibilities that we really haven't explored yet. Just like they can be used for control flow when that wasn't their initial design I'm positive they can be used to solve a lot of other problems that we normally have problems with in javascript. It will probably be brighter minds than me that find out how else we can use them but I'd at least start playing around with them and getting a better understanding of what they're capable of. There's still more goodies for generators coming in ES.next.
I'm looking to port JS code which runs two AJAX calls in parrallel but needs both to complete before operating.
With JQuery you can do:
$.when($.getJSON('/configVal'),
$.getJSON('/configdesc'))
.then(function(configByPluginResponse, configSpecResponse) {
Now I'm not sure how to handle with with Fay. The multithread parts of haskell are not available. I don't really want a state monad, because I want both fetches to run in parrallel, not sequentially.
I've spotted in the Fay source this example, Cont.hs. I'm not sure it can actually solve the problem, but anyway it doesn't compile if I just run "fay Cont.hs"; it complains about not knowing GHC.Base.Monad. This is with the current GIT head of Fay.
EDIT: I would like if possible pleasing Haskell semantics, if not... then yes, wrapping jquery's "then". I'm not sure how to achieve continuations or FRP with Fay, guidance with that would be appreciated (for FRP it's questionable wether Fay is expressive enough). So as a second choice I would just wrap the "then" but if possible I would really like it to accept any number of concurrent ajax requests, as the JS does (probably through an array), which may be complicated to achieve. I'll give it a shot myself, but I think I won't make it.
I saw in the fay-jquery bindings this comment:
-- TODO: jQuery['when'](): figure out Deferred first
I did manage to compile Cont.hs, I had to use the --no-ghc flag. So I'll check a bit, although the flag disables typecheck, not crazy about that.
It is frustrating to have to rely on JS libraries for such operations when I'm convinced that as a language Haskell is better equipped to solve such problems.
EDIT2: so it seems what I want are coroutines. I've seen some Haste code doing related things, but not doing exactly this. I would also accept a Haste or GHCJS solution to this problem.
EDIT3: Well in normall Haskell it seems this does it; I guess it would work with GHCJS and Haste, but in Fay it'll probably have to be wrapping of JS I guess...
Just wondering if anyone could give me a comparison of trade-offs between these modules for handling async events. Specifically, I'm interested in knowing about reasons to use Async instead of Fibers.promise, which I am using quite extensively at least in my test code right now. In particular, one of the major pluses I see in Fibers.promise is that I can keep the stack chain front bifurcating, making it possible to use try { } catch { } finally, and also allowing me to ensure that after a request has been handled that the response is ended.
Is anyone using Q_oper8? I found this on another page and was just wondering if that's already dead or if its something I should check out.
I've never heard of Q_oper8, so I can't comment on it, but I'll come at this from the other direction. I heard about async first and Fiber (and its helper libraries) second, and I don't like the latter, actually.
The Downsides of Fiber
Unfamiliarity for other Javascript developers
Fiber introduces the concept of co-routines to Javascript via a compiled Fiber native method that takes over the interpretation of the Javascript code passed to it, intercepting calls to yield to jump back to the waiting co-routine.
This may not matter to you, but if you need to work on a team, you'll have to teach the concept to your members (or hope they have experience with the concept from other languages, like Go).
No Windows Support
So, in order to use Fiber or any of the libraries written on top of it, you'll have to natively compile it for your platform first. I don't use Windows, but note that Fiber is not supported on Windows, so that restricts the utility of your own library off-the-bat. Which means you won't be finding general-purpose Node.js libraries written in Fiber at all (and you probably wouldn't have, anyways, since it adds a costly compilation step that you'd otherwise avoid with async).
Browser Incompatible
This means any code you write using Fiber will not be able to run in the browser, because you can't mix native code with the browser (nor would I as a browser user want you to), even if everything you write is "Javascript" (it's syntatically Javascript, but semantically not).
More Difficult Debugging
While the "callback hell" may be less visually pleasing, Continuation-Passing Style does have one very good thing going for it over Co-Routines -- you know exactly where a problem has occurred from the call stack and can trace backwards. Co-Routines enter the function at more than one point in the program, and can exit from three kinds of calls: return, throw and yield(), where the latter is also a return point.
With co-routines, you have cross-execution between two or more functions running "simultaneously", and you may have more than one set of co-routines running at the same time on the event loop. With traditional callbacks, you're guaranteed that the outer scope of the function is static during the execution of said function, so you only need to check those outer variables once if they're needed. Co-routines need these checks to be run after every yield() (since it's usage with the originating co-routine would be translated into a callback chain in real Javascript).
Basically, I think the co-routine concept is made more difficult to work with because it has to exist inside of the Javascript event loop, rather than being a method to implement one.
What makes Async "better"?
Worse is Better
It's sort of the "worse-is-better" idea, actually. Rather than extend the Javascript language to try and get rid of its warts (and create new ones, in my opinion), Async is a pure-Javascript solution to cover them up, like makeup.
Control flow explicit
The Async functions describe different types of logic flow that needs to cross the event loop barrier, and the library covers up the implementation details of the callback code needed to implement that logic, and you just provide it functions it should run in roughly the linear order they will execute across the event loop.
If you're willing to drop the first indentation level around the async methods' arguments, you have no extra indentation versus Co-Routines and only a minor number of extra lines of function(callback) { declarations, like this:
var async = require('async');
var someArray = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
async.forEach(someArray,
function(number, callback) {
//Do something with the number
callback();
}, function(err) {
//Done doing stuff, or one of the calls to the previous function returned an error I need to deal with
});
In this case, you know that all of the variables your code is using could only have been changed before your code is run if they weren't changed by your code, so you can debug easier, and there is only one "return" mechanism: callback(). You either callback with nothing on success or pass the callback an error when something's gone wrong.
Code reuse not difficult
The above example makes code reuse difficult but it doesn't have to be. You can always pass in named functions as the parameters:
var async = require('async');
// Javascript doesn't care about declaration order within a scope,
// so order the declarations in a way that's most readable to you
async.forEach(someArray, frazzleNumber, doneFrazzling);
var someArray = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
function frazzleNumber(number, callback) {
// Do something to number
callback();
}
function doneFrazzling(err) {
// Do something or handle error
}
Functional, not imperative
The async module discourages the use of imperative-style flow control and encourages (requires, for the parts that cross the event loop) the use of functions for flow control.
The advantage of the functional style is that you can easily re-use the body of your loop or your conditional, and that you can create new control flow "verbs" that better match the flow of your code (demonstrated by the very existence of the async library), like the async.auto control flow method that implements dependency graph resolution for function call order. (You specify a series of named functions and list the other functions, if any, that it depends on to execute, and auto runs first the "independent" functions then the next function that can run based on when its dependent functions have finished running.)
Rather than writing your code to fit the imperative style dictated by your language, you write your code as the logic of the problem dictates, and implement the "glue" control flow to get it to happen.
In Summary
Fiber, by its very nature of extending the Javascript language, cannot develop a large ecosystem within Node.js, especially when Async gets 80% of the way on the looks department, and has none of the other downsides of co-routines in Javascript.
The short answer:
Async is a pure/classic javascript solution to managing single-thread asynchronousity
Fibers is a node.js extension for creating coroutines. It includes a futures library for managing single-thread asynchronousity.
There are many other futures libraries (listed below) that don't require an extension of javascript.
Q_oper8 is a node.js module for managing multi-process concurrency
Note that none of these offer "threads" and so none can be said to do multithreading (though there is a node.js extension for that too: threads_a_gogo).
Async vs Fiber/futures
Async
Async and Fibers/futures are different ways to solve the same problem: managing asynchronously resolving dependencies. Async seems to have many more "bells and whistles" than many other libraries that try to solve this problem, which in my opinion makes it worse (much more cognitive overhead - ie more crap to learn).
In javascript basic asynchronisity looks like this:
asyncCall(someParam, function(result) {
useThe(result);
});
If you have a situation that requires more than just basic asynchronisity, like where you need the results of two asyncronous calls, you might do something like this:
asyncCall1(someParam, function(result0) {
asyncCall2(someParam, function(result1) {
use(result0, result1);
}
});
Already starts to look like callback hell. Also its inefficient because the second call is waiting for the first call to complete even though it isn't dependent on it, not to mention the code doesn't even do any sort of reasonable error handling. Async provides one solution to writing it a little more efficiently:
async.parallel([
function(callback) {
asyncCall1(someParam, function(result0) {
callback(null,result0);
},
function(callback) {
asyncCall1(someParam, function(result1) {
callback(null,result1);
},
}
],
function(err, results) {
use(results[0], results[1]);
});
So to me, thats rather worse than callback hell, but to each his own I suppose. Despite it being ugly, it allows both calls to happen simultaneously (as long as they make non-blocking IO calls or something like that). Async has many more options for managing asynchronous code, so if you're interested take a look at the documentation.
Enter fiber/futures
The coroutines the Fibers module includes a futures library that uses coroutines to re-inject asynchronous events back into the current continuation (future.wait()).
Fibers is different from most other futures libraries because it allows the current continuation to wait on an asynchronous event - meaning it doesn't require the use of callbacks in order for you to get a value back from an async request - allowing asynchronous code to become synchronous-like. Read about coroutines for more about that.
Node.js has io functions like readFileSync, which lets you wait on the function in-line while it gets the file for you. This is not something that is normally done in javascript, and isn't something that can be written in pure javascript - it requires an extension like Fibers.
Going back to the same asynchronous example above, this is what it would look like with fibers/futures:
var future0 = asyncCall1(someParam);
var future1 = asyncCall2(someParam);
use(future0.wait(), future1.wait());
This is drastically simpler and just as efficient as the Async mess up there. It avoids callback-hell in an elegant efficient way. There are (minor) downsides though. David Ellis overstated many of the downsides, so I'll repeat the only valid one here:
Browser Incompatibility
By virtue of Fibers being a node.js extension, it will not be compatible with browsers. This will make sharing code that uses fibers impossible with both a node.js server and the browser. However, there is a strong argument that most asynchronous code you want on the server (filesystem, database, network calls) is not the same code you want on a browser (ajax calls). Maybe timeouts collide, but that seems like it.
Beyond that, the streamline.js project has the ability to bridge this gap. Seems like it has a compilation process that can transform streamline.js code using synchronization and futures into pure javascript using the callback style, similar to the now unsupported Narrative Javascript. Streamline.js can use a couple different mechanisms behind the scenes, one being node.js Fibers, another being ECMAScript 6 generators, and the last being translation into callback-style javascript which I already mentioned.
More difficult debugging
This one seems like a valid, if minor, gripe. Even if you're just planning on using fibers/futures, and not using coroutines for anything else, there might still be confusing context switches because of unexpected function exit (and entrance) points.
Introduces pre-emptiveness into javascript
This is probably the most major problem with fibers, since it has the possibility (however unlikely) of introducing hard-to-understand bugs. Basically, because a Fiber yield can cause a temporary exit of a set of code to another undetermined function, its possible that some invalid state can be read or introduced. See this article for more info. Personally, I think the incredible cleanness of fibers/futures and similar structures is well worth the rare insidious bugs. Many more bugs are caused by awful concurrency code.
Invalid gripes
Not on windows: this just isn't true anymore
Unfamiliarity with coroutines: A. Unfamiliarity is never a reason to shun something. If its good its good, regardless of how familiar you are with it. B. While coroutines and yields may be unfamiliar, futures are an easy concept to understand.
Other futures libraries
There are many libraries that implement futures, where the concept may be called "futures", "deferred objects", or "promises". This includes libraries like async-future, streamline.js, Q, when.js, promiscuous, jQuery's deferred, coolaj86's futures, kriszyp's promises, and Narrative Javascript.
Most of these use callbacks to resolve the futures, which get around many of the problems Fibers introduces. However, they aren't quite as clean as fibers/futures, tho they are far cleaner than Async. Here's the same example again using my own async-future:
var future0 = asyncCall1(someParam);
var future1 = asyncCall2(someParam);
Future.all([future0, future1]).then(function(results) {
use(results[0], results[1])
}).done()
Q_oper8
Q_oper8 is really a different beast. It runs jobs in a queue using a pool of processes. Since javascript is single-threaded*, and javascript doesn't have native threading available, processes are the usual way to take advantage of more than one processor in node.js. Q_oper8 is intended as an alternative to managing processes using node.js's child_process module.
You should also check out Step.
It handles only a small subset of what async can do, but I think the code is much easier to read. It's great for just handling the normal case of doing a sequence of things, with some of those things happening in parallel.
I tend to use Step for the bulk of my logic, and then use async occasionally when I need to apply methods repeatedly in serial or parallel execution (ie - call this function until, or call this function on each element of this array).
I'm using jQuery's Deferred functionality on the client and jQuery Deferred for nodejs on the server in place of nested callbacks. It has greatly reduced the code and made things so readable.
http://techishard.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/promises-promises-a-concise-pattern-for-getting-and-showing-my-json-array-with-jquery-and-underscore/
http://techishard.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/making-mongoose-keep-its-promises-on-the-server/