While this code is running i cant do anything. Is there asynchronous way for loops?
// This object is very large
var listOfUsers = {};
for(var key in listOfUsers){
delete listOfUsers[key]
}
Is there asynchronous way for loops?
No. Since delete listOfUsers[key] is itself a synchronous operation, then there is no way to do anything else while that loop is running. The JS interpreter is busy executing the loop and executing that delete operation. Because Javascript in node.js is single threaded so there's only ever one set of Javascript executing at a time. You can't execute anything else until the loop is done.
It occurs to me that if you're just trying to get listOfUsers back to an empty object and nobody else holds a reference to the original object, you could perhaps replace your existing loop with just this:
listOfUsers = {};
while would be a lot faster. The old object (and its properties) would then get garbage collected.
In rare circumstances, you can solve problems like this and lessen the impact of a synchronous operation by breaking its operation into chunks and doing one chunk, then letting the event loop run and then do another chunk.
For example, you might be able to do something like this:
// remove all users, chunked to 100 at a time
// allowing the event loop to run between chunks
function removeUsers() {
const chunkSize = 100;
let usersToDelete = Object.keys(listOfUsers).slice(chunkSize);
if (!usersToDelete.length) {
// everything deleted, no more work to do
return;
} else {
for (let key of usersToDelete) {
delete listOfUsers[key];
}
// delete some more after other things get a chance to run in the event loop
setTimeout(removeUsers, 20);
}
A problem with this approach is that you can't add any new users to the listOfUsers until this is done or they will get deleted.
Related
How can I run a single method multiple times multi-threaded when called as a method of a class?
At first I tried to use the cluster module, but I realize it just re-runs the whole process from the start, rightfully so.
How can I achieve something like what's outlined below?
I want a class's method to spawn n processes, and when the parallel tasks are completed, I can resolve a promise which the method returns.
The problem with the code below is that calling cluster.fork() will fork index.js process.
index.js
const Person = require('./Person.js');
var Mary = new Person('Mary');
Mary.run(5).then(() => {...});
console.log('I should only run once, but I am called 5 times too many');
Person.js
const cluster = require('cluster');
class Person{
run(distance){
var completed = 0;
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
for(var i = 0; i < distance; i++) {
// run a separate process for each
cluster.fork().send(i).on('message', message => {
if (message === 'completed') { ++completed; }
if (completed === distance) { resolve(); }
});
}
});
}
}
I think the short answer is impossible. It's even worse - this has nothing to do with js. To multi (process or thread) in your particular problem you will essentially need a copy of the object in every thread, since it needs (maybe) access to fields - in this case you would need to either initialize it in every thread or share memory. That last one I don't think is provided in cluster, and not trivial in other languages in every use case.
If the calculation is independent of the Person I suggest you extract it, and use the usual (in index.js):
if(cluster.isWorker) {
//Use the i for calculation
} else {
//Create Person, then fork children in for loop
}
You then collect the results and change the Person as needed. You will be copying index.js, but this is standard and you only run what you need.
The problem is if results are dependent on Person. If these are constant for all i you can still send them to your forks independently. Otherwise what you have is the only way to fork. In general forking in cluster is not meant for methods, but for the app itself, which is the standard forking behavior.
Another solution
Following your comment, I suggest you checkout child_process.execFile or child_process.exec on same file.
This way you can spawn a totally independent process on the fly. Now instead of calling cluster.fork you call execFile. You can use either the exit code or stdout as return values (stderr etc.). Promise is now replaced with:
var results = []
for(var i = 0; i < distance; i++) {
// run a separate process for each
results.push(child_process.execFile().child.execFile('node', 'mymethod.js`,i]));
}
//... catch the exit event from all results or return a callback using results.
Inside mymethod.js Have your code that takes i and returns what you want either in the exit code or through stdout, both properties of the returned child_process. This is a bit un-node.js-y since you're waiting on asynchronous calls, but you're requirements are non standard. Since I'm not sure how you use this perhaps returning a callback with the array is a better idea.
I am very new to node js and socket io. Can this code lead to a race condition on counter variable. Should I use a locking library for safely updating the counter variable.
"use strict";
module.exports = function (opts) {
var module = {};
var io = opts.io;
var counter = 0;
io.on('connection', function (socket) {
socket.on("inc", function (msg) {
counter += 1;
});
socket.on("dec" , function (msg) {
counter -= 1;
});
});
return module;
};
No, there is no race condition here. Javascript in node.js is single threaded and event driven so only one socket.io event handler is ever executing at a time. This is one of the nice programming simplifications that come from the single threaded model. It runs a given thread of execution to completion and then and only then does it grab the next event from the event queue and run it.
Hopefully you do realize that the same counter variable is accessed by all socket.io connections. While this isn't a race condition, it means that there's only one counter that all socket.io connections are capable of modifying.
If you wanted a per-connection counter (separeate counter for each connection), then you could define the counter variable inside the io.on('connection', ....) handler.
The race conditions you do have to watch out for in node.js are when you make an async call and then continue the rest of your coding logic in the async callback. While the async operation is underway, other node.js code can run and can change publicly accessible variables you may be using. That is not the case in your counter example, but it does occur with lots of other types of node.js programming.
For example, this could be an issue:
var flag = false;
function doSomething() {
// set flag indicating we are in a fs.readFile() operation
flag = true;
fs.readFile("somefile.txt", function(err, data) {
// do something with data
// clear flag
flag = false;
});
}
In this case, immediately after we call fs.readFile(), we are returning control back to the node.js. It is free at that time to run other operations. If another operation could also run this code, then it will tromp on the value of flag and we'd have a concurrency issue.
So, you have to be aware that anytime you make an async operation and then the rest of your logic continues in the callback for the async operation that other code can run and any shared variables can be accessed at that time. You either need to make a local copy of shared data or you need to provide appropriate protections for shared data.
In this particular case, the flag could be incremented and decremented rather than simply set to true or false and it would probably serve the desired purpose of keeping track of whether this file is current being read or not.
Shorter answer:
"Race condition" is when you execute a series of ordered asynchronous functions and because of their async nature they won't finish processing in their original order.
In your code, you are executing a series of ordered synchronous process (increasing or decreasing the counter), So they finish instantly after they start, resulting in ordered output. So no racing here!
I am experimenting with the event loop. First I begin with this straightforward code to read and print the contents of a file:
var fs = require('fs');
var PATH = "./.gitignore";
fs.readFile(PATH,"utf-8",function(err,text){
console.log("----read: "+text);
});
Then I place it into an infinite loop. In this case, the readFile function is never executed. If I am not mistaken it's because Node's single thread is busy iterating without letting I/O calls be executed.
while(true){
var fs = require('fs');
var PATH = "./.gitignore";
fs.readFile(PATH,"utf-8",function(err,text){
console.log("----read: "+text);
});
}
So, I would like to do something so that I/O calls are assigned process time intertwined with the loop. I tried with process.nextTick() but it doesn't work:
while(true){
process.nextTick(function(){
fs.readFile(PATH,"utf-8",function(err,text){
console.log("----read: "+text)
});
});
}
Why isn't it working and how could I make it?
Because your while loop is still running. It's just infinitely adding things to do in the next tick. If you let it go, your node process will crash as it runs out of memory.
When you work with async code, your normal loops and control structures tend to trip you up. The reason is that they execute synchronously in one step of the event loop. Until something happens that yields control to the event loop again, nothing 'nextTick' will happen.
Think of it like this, You are in Pass B of the event loop when your code runs. When you call
process.nextTick(function foo() { do.stuff(); })'
you are adding the foo to the list of 'things to do before you start pass C of the event loop.' Every time you call nextTick, you add one more thing to the list, but none of them will run until the synchronous code is done.
What you need to do instead is create 'do the next thing' links in your callbacks. Think linked-lists.
// var files = your list of files;
function do_read(count) {
var next = count+1;
fs.readFile(files[count], "utf-8", function(err,text) {
console.log("----read: " + text);
if (next < files.length) {
// this doesn't run until the previous readFile completes.
process.nextTick(function() { do_read(next) });
}
});
}
// kick off the first one:
do_read(files[0], 0);
(obviously this is a contrived example, but you get the idea)
This causes each 'next file' to be added to the 'nextTick' to-do queue only after the previous one has been fully processed.
TL;DR: Most of the time, you don't want to start it doing the next thing until the previous thing is completed
Hope that helps!
I first tried a general description of the problem, then some more detail why the usual approaches don't work. If you would like to read these abstracted explanations go on. In the end I explain the greater problem and the specific application, so if you would rather read that, jump to "Actual application".
I am using a node.js child-process to do some computationally intensive work. The parent process does it's work but at some point in the execution it reaches a point where it must have the information from the child process before continuing. Therefore, I am looking for a way to wait for the child-process to finish.
My current setup looks somewhat like this:
importantDataCalculator = fork("./runtime");
importantDataCalculator.on("message", function (msg) {
if (msg.type === "result") {
importantData = msg.data;
} else if (msg.type === "error") {
importantData = null;
} else {
throw new Error("Unknown message from dataGenerator!");
}
});
and somewhere else
function getImportantData() {
while (importantData === undefined) {
// wait for the importantDataGenerator to finish
}
if (importantData === null) {
throw new Error("Data could not be generated.");
} else {
// we should have a proper data now
return importantData;
}
}
So when the parent process starts, it executes the first bit of code, spawning a child process to calculate the data and goes on doing it's own bit of work. When the time comes that it needs the result from the child process to continue it calls getImportantData(). So the idea is that getImportantData() blocks until the data is calculated.
However, the way I used doesn't work. I think this is due to me preventing the event loop from executing by using the while-loop. And since the Event-Loop does not execute no message from the child-process can be received and thus the condition of the while-loop can not change, making it an infinite loop.
Of course, I don't really want to use this kind of while-loop. What I would rather do is tell node.js "execute one iteration of the event loop, then get back to me". I would do this repeatedly, until the data I need was received and then continue the execution where I left of by returning from the getter.
I realize that his poses the danger of reentering the same function several times, but the module I want to use this in does almost nothing on the event loop except for waiting for this message from the child process and sending out other messages reporting it's progress, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Is there way to execute just one iteration of the event loop in Node.js? Or is there another way to achieve something similar? Or is there a completely different approach to achieve what I'm trying to do here?
The only solution I could think of so far is to change the calculation in such a way that I introduce yet another process. In this scenario, there would be the process calculating the important data, a process calculating the bits of data for which the important data is not needed and a parent process for these two, which just waits for data from the two child-processes and combines the pieces when they arrive. Since it does not have to do any computationally intensive work itself, it can just wait for events from the event loop (=messages) and react to them, forwarding the combined data as necessary and storing pieces of data that cannot be combined yet.
However this introduces yet another process and even more inter-process communication, which introduces more overhead, which I would like to avoid.
Edit
I see that more detail is needed.
The parent process (let's call it process 1) is itself a process spawned by another process (process 0) to do some computationally intensive work. Actually, it just executes some code over which I don't have control, so I cannot make it work asynchronously. What I can do (and have done) is make the code that is executed regularly call a function to report it's progress and provided partial results. This progress report is then send back to the original process via IPC.
But in rare cases the partial results are not correct, so they have to be modified. To do so I need some data I can calculate independently from the normal calculation. However, this calculation could take several seconds; thus, I start another process (process 2) to do this calculation and provide the result to process 1, via an IPC message. Now process 1 and 2 are happily calculating there stuff, and hopefully the corrective data calculated by process 2 is finished before process 1 needs it. But sometimes one of the early results of process 1 needs to be corrected and in that case I have to wait for process 2 to finish its calculation. Blocking the event loop of process 1 is theoretically not a problem, since the main process (process 0) would not be be affected by it. The only problem is, that by preventing the further execution of code in process 1 I am also blocking the event loop, which prevents it from ever receiving the result from process 2.
So I need to somehow pause the further execution of code in process 1 without blocking the event loop. I was hoping that there was a call like process.runEventLoopIteration that executes an iteration of the event loop and then returns.
I would then change the code like this:
function getImportantData() {
while (importantData === undefined) {
process.runEventLoopIteration();
}
if (importantData === null) {
throw new Error("Data could not be generated.");
} else {
// we should have a proper data now
return importantData;
}
}
thus executing the event loop until I have received the necessary data but NOT continuing the execution of the code that called getImportantData().
Basically what I'm doing in process 1 is this:
function callback(partialDataMessage) {
if (partialDataMessage.needsCorrection) {
getImportantData();
// use data to correct message
process.send(correctedMessage); // send corrected result to main process
} else {
process.send(partialDataMessage); // send unmodified result to main process
}
}
function executeCode(code) {
run(code, callback); // the callback will be called from time to time when the code produces new data
// this call is synchronous, run is blocking until the calculation is finished
// so if we reach this point we are done
// the only way to pause the execution of the code is to NOT return from the callback
}
Actual application/implementation/problem
I need this behaviour for the following application. If you have a better approach to achieve this feel free to propose it.
I want to execute arbitrary code and be notified about what variables it changes, what functions are called, what exceptions occur etc. I also need the location of these events in the code to be able to display the gathered information in the UI next to the original code.
To achieve this, I instrument the code and insert callbacks into it. I then execute the code, wrapping the execution in a try-catch block. Whenever the callback is called with some data about the execution (e.g. a variable change) I send a message to the main process telling it about the change. This way, the user is notified about the execution of the code, while it is running. The location information for the events generated by these callbacks is added to the callback call during the instrumentation, so that is not a problem.
The problem appears, when an exception occurs. I also want to notify the user about exceptions in the tested code. Therefore, I wrapped the execution of the code in a try-catch and any exceptions that get out of the execution are caught and send to the user interface. But the location of the errors is not correct. An Error object created by node.js has a complete call stack so it knows where it occurred. But this location if relative to the instrumented code, so I cannot use this location information as is, to display the error next to the original code. I need to transform this location in the instrumented code into a location in the original code. To do so, after instrumenting the code, I calculate a source map to map locations in the instrumented code to locations in the original code. However, this calculation might take several seconds. So, I figured, I would start a child process to calculate the source map, while the execution of the instrumented code is already started. Then, when an exception occurs, I check whether the source map has already been calculated, and if it hasn't I wait for the calculation to finish to be able to correct the location.
Since the code to be executed and watched can be completely arbitrary I cannot trivially rewrite it to be asynchronous. I only know that it calls the provided callback, because I instrumented the code to do so. I also cannot just store the message and return to continue the execution of the code, checking back during the next call whether the source map has been finished, because continuing the execution of the code would also block the event-loop, preventing the calculated source map from ever being received in the execution process. Or if it is received, then only after the code to execute has completely finished, which could be quite late or never (if the code to execute contains an infinite loop). But before I receive the sourceMap I cannot send further updates about the execution state. Combined, this means I would only be able to send the corrected progress messages after the code to execute has finished (which might be never) which completely defeats the purpose of the program (to enable the programmer to watch what the code does, while it executes).
Temporarily surrendering control to the event loop would solve this problem. However, that does not seem to be possible. The other idea I have is to introduce a third process which controls both the execution process and the sourceMapGeneration process. It receives progress messages from the execution process and if any of the messages needs correction it waits for the sourceMapGeneration process. Since the processes are independent, the controlling process can store the received messages and wait for the sourceMapGeneration process while the execution process continues executing, and as soon as it receives the source map, it corrects the messages and sends all of them off.
However, this would not only require yet another process (overhead) it also means I have to transfer the code once more between processes and since the code can have thousands of line that in itself can take some time, so I would like to move it around as little as possible.
I hope this explains, why I cannot and didn't use the usual "asynchronous callback" approach.
Adding a third ( :) ) solution to your problem after you clarified what behavior you seek I suggest using Fibers.
Fibers let you do co-routines in nodejs. Coroutines are functions that allow multiple entry/exit points. This means you will be able to yield control and resume it as you please.
Here is a sleep function from the official documentation that does exactly that, sleep for a given amount of time and perform actions.
function sleep(ms) {
var fiber = Fiber.current;
setTimeout(function() {
fiber.run();
}, ms);
Fiber.yield();
}
Fiber(function() {
console.log('wait... ' + new Date);
sleep(1000);
console.log('ok... ' + new Date);
}).run();
console.log('back in main');
You can place the code that does the waiting for the resource in a function, causing it to yield and then run again when the task is done.
For example, adapting your example from the question:
var pausedExecution, importantData;
function getImportantData() {
while (importantData === undefined) {
pausedExecution = Fiber.current;
Fiber.yield();
pausedExecution = undefined;
}
if (importantData === null) {
throw new Error("Data could not be generated.");
} else {
// we should have proper data now
return importantData;
}
}
function callback(partialDataMessage) {
if (partialDataMessage.needsCorrection) {
var theData = getImportantData();
// use data to correct message
process.send(correctedMessage); // send corrected result to main process
} else {
process.send(partialDataMessage); // send unmodified result to main process
}
}
function executeCode(code) {
// setup child process to calculate the data
importantDataCalculator = fork("./runtime");
importantDataCalculator.on("message", function (msg) {
if (msg.type === "result") {
importantData = msg.data;
} else if (msg.type === "error") {
importantData = null;
} else {
throw new Error("Unknown message from dataGenerator!");
}
if (pausedExecution) {
// execution is waiting for the data
pausedExecution.run();
}
});
// wrap the execution of the code in a Fiber, so it can be paused
Fiber(function () {
runCodeWithCallback(code, callback); // the callback will be called from time to time when the code produces new data
// this callback is synchronous and blocking,
// but it will yield control to the event loop if it has to wait for the child-process to finish
}).run();
}
Good luck! I always say it is better to solve one problem in 3 ways than solving 3 problems the same way. I'm glad we were able to work out something that worked for you. Admittingly, this was a pretty interesting question.
The rule of asynchronous programming is, once you've entered asynchronous code, you must continue to use asynchronous code. While you can continue to call the function over and over via setImmediate or something of the sort, you still have the issue that you're trying to return from an asynchronous process.
Without knowing more about your program, I can't tell you exactly how you should structure it, but by and large the way to "return" data from a process that involves asynchronous code is to pass in a callback; perhaps this will put you on the right track:
function getImportantData(callback) {
importantDataCalculator = fork("./runtime");
importantDataCalculator.on("message", function (msg) {
if (msg.type === "result") {
callback(null, msg.data);
} else if (msg.type === "error") {
callback(new Error("Data could not be generated."));
} else {
callback(new Error("Unknown message from sourceMapGenerator!"));
}
});
}
You would then use this function like this:
getImportantData(function(error, data) {
if (error) {
// handle the error somehow
} else {
// `data` is the data from the forked process
}
});
I talk about this in a bit more detail in one of my screencasts, Thinking Asynchronously.
What you are running into is a very common scenario that skilled programmers who are starting with nodejs often struggle with.
You're correct. You can't do this the way you are attempting (loop).
The main process in node.js is single threaded and you are blocking the event loop.
The simplest way to resolve this is something like:
function getImportantData() {
if(importantData === undefined){ // not set yet
setImmediate(getImportantData); // try again on the next event loop cycle
return; //stop this attempt
}
if (importantData === null) {
throw new Error("Data could not be generated.");
} else {
// we should have a proper data now
return importantData;
}
}
What we are doing, is that the function is re-attempting to process the data on the next iteration of the event loop using setImmediate.
This introduces a new problem though, your function returns a value. Since it will not be ready, the value you are returning is undefined. So you have to code reactively. You need to tell your code what to do when the data arrives.
This is typically done in node with a callback
function getImportantData(err,whenDone) {
if(importantData === undefined){ // not set yet
setImmediate(getImportantData.bind(null,whenDone)); // try again on the next event loop cycle
return; //stop this attempt
}
if (importantData === null) {
err("Data could not be generated.");
} else {
// we should have a proper data now
whenDone(importantData);
}
}
This can be used in the following way
getImportantData(function(err){
throw new Error(err); // error handling function callback
}, function(data){ //this is whenDone in our case
//perform actions on the important data
})
Your question (updated) is very interesting, it appears to be closely related to a problem I had with asynchronously catching exceptions. (Also Brandon and Ihad an interesting discussion with me about it! It's a small world)
See this question on how to catch exceptions asynchronously. The key concept is that you can use (assuming nodejs 0.8+) nodejs domains to constrain the scope of an exception.
This will allow you to easily get the location of the exception since you can surround asynchronous blocks with atry/catch. I think this should solve the bigger issue here.
You can find the relevant code in the linked question. The usage is something like:
atry(function() {
setTimeout(function(){
throw "something";
},1000);
}).catch(function(err){
console.log("caught "+err);
});
Since you have access to the scope of atry you can get the stack trace there which would let you skip the more complicated source-map usage.
Good luck!
I'm attempting to load a store catalog into MongoDb (2.2.2) using Node.js (0.8.18) and Mongoose (3.5.4) -- all on Windows 7 64bit. The data set contains roughly 12,500 records. Each data record is a JSON string.
My latest attempt looks like this:
var fs = require('fs');
var odir = process.cwd() + '/file_data/output_data/';
var mongoose = require('mongoose');
var Catalog = require('./models').Catalog;
var conn = mongoose.connect('mongodb://127.0.0.1:27017/sc_store');
exports.main = function(callback){
var catalogArray = fs.readFileSync(odir + 'pc-out.json','utf8').split('\n');
var i = 0;
Catalog.remove({}, function(err){
while(i < catalogArray.length){
new Catalog(JSON.parse(catalogArray[i])).save(function(err, doc){
if(err){
console.log(err);
} else {
i++;
}
});
if(i === catalogArray.length -1) return callback('database populated');
}
});
};
I have had a lot of problems trying to populate the database. Under previous scenarios (and this one), node pegs the processor and eventually runs out of memory. Note that in this scenario, I'm trying to allow Mongoose to save a record, and then iterate to the next record once the record saves.
But the iterator inside of the Mongoose save function never gets incremented. In addition, it never throws any errors. But if I put the iterator (i) outside of the asynchronous call to Mongoose, it will work, provided the number of records that I try to load are not too big (I have successfully loaded 2,000 this way).
So my questions are: Why isn't the iterator inside of the Mongoose save call ever incremented? And, more importantly, what is the best way to load a large data set into MongoDb using Mongoose?
Rob
i is your index to where you're pulling input data from in catalogArray, but you're also trying to use it to keep track of how many have been saved which isn't possible. Try tracking them separately like this:
var i = 0;
var saved = 0;
Catalog.remove({}, function(err){
while(i < catalogArray.length){
new Catalog(JSON.parse(catalogArray[i])).save(function(err, doc){
saved++;
if(err){
console.log(err);
} else {
if(saved === catalogArray.length) {
return callback('database populated');
}
}
});
i++;
}
});
UPDATE
If you want to add tighter flow control to the process, you can use the async module's forEachLimit function to limit the number of outstanding save operations to whatever you specify. For example, to limit it to one outstanding save at a time:
Catalog.remove({}, function(err){
async.forEachLimit(catalogArray, 1, function (catalog, cb) {
new Catalog(JSON.parse(catalog)).save(function (err, doc) {
if (err) {
console.log(err);
}
cb(err);
});
}, function (err) {
callback('database populated');
});
}
Rob,
The short answer:
You created an infinite loop. You're thinking synchronously and with blocking, Javascript functions asynchronously and without blocking. What you are trying to do is like trying to directly turn the feeling of hunger into a sandwich. You can't. The closest thing is you use the feeling of hunger to motivate you to go to the kitchen and make it. Don't try to make Javascript block. It won't work. Now, learn async.forEachLimit. It will work for what you want to do here.
You should probably review asynchronous design patterns and understand what it means on a deeper level. Callbacks are not simply an alternative to return values. They are fundamentally different in how and when they are executed. Here is a good primer: http://cs.brown.edu/courses/csci1680/f12/handouts/async.pdf
The long answer:
There is an underlying problem here, and that is your lack of understanding of what non-blocking IO and asynchronous means. Im not sure if you are breaking into node development, or this is just a one-off project, but if you do plan to continue using node (or any asynchronous language) then it is worth the time to understand the difference between synchronous and asynchronous design patterns, and what motivations there are for them. So, that is why you have a logic error putting the loop invariant increment inside an asynchronous callback which is creating an infinite loop.
In non-computer science, that means that your increment to i will never occur. The reason is because Javascript executes a single block of code to completion before any asynchronous callbacks are called. So in your code, your loop will run over and over, without i ever incrementing. And, in the background, you are storing the same document in mongo over and over. Each iteration of the loop starts sending document with index 0 to mongo, the callback can't fire until your loop ends, and all other code outside the loop runs to completion. So, the callback queues up. But, your loop runs again since i++ is never executed (remember, the callback is queued until your code finishes), inserting record 0 again, queueing another callback to execute AFTER your loop is complete. This goes on and on until your memory is filled with callbacks waiting to inform your infinite loop that document 0 has been inserted millions of times.
In general, there is no way to make Javascript block without doing something really really bad. For example, something paramount to setting your kitchen on fire to fry some eggs for that sandwich I talked about in the "short answer".
My advice is to take advantage of libs like async. https://github.com/caolan/async JohnnyHK mentioned it here, and he was correct for doing so.