The stack trace is only ruined if the error is created inside the nextTick() block. See: https://gist.github.com/BryanDonovan/6254656
On Aug 23, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Chaoran Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > I think using nextTick() for error handling is a very very bad idea. > > Stack trace could be very helpful when error happens. use nextTick basically > throws that stack trace ability away. > > Moreover, the whole nextTick thing is stupid IMO. When I use an asynchronous > API, I always assume it *may* be optimized for some cases to run > synchronously. So changing the state of a callback function between it is > used and it is called is a very very bad idea. In almost every case I ran > into, it turned out to be a programmer mistake rather than an intended > behavior. The programmer should *NOT* assume a guaranteed execution order. It > is a very unnecessary overhead (sometimes also very large) to pay for API > developers just to guarantee execution order, because execution order is > irrelevant in most cases. > > To sum up, > 1) Programmer should assume an asynchronous API may callback synchronously > because of optimization for some fast path. > 2) Guarantee execution 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 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 kind-of understand why that is a best-practice, but > what I don't understand is what the drawback is if you don't do it. > > For example, I write code like this all the time, and have never had a single > problem with it: > > function getSomething(args, cb) { > if (!args) { return cb(new Error('args required')); } > if (!args.id) { return cb(new Error('args.id required')); } > > SomeDatabase.get({id: args.id}, cb); > } > > What are the potential issues with not wrapping those arg checks in > process.nextTick()? > > > Thanks, > > Bryan > > -- > -- > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > Posting guidelines: > https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/nodejs/0TmVfX9z1R0/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
