It executes on a native thread in the background. That way it doesn't stall the Javascript execution loop, even if you give it a gigabyte of data to hash.
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
17 points (79.3% liked)
Programming
17364 readers
199 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It’s standard for operations that take a while and can be performed asynchronously.
What’s your problem with it?
async/await infecting all of my code, being unable to create a get myField() method that involves a hash calculation. It may be standard to do heavy lifting concurrently, but async hash functions are certainly not standard in any of the languages I've used (which is quite a few).
From browsing your other comments on this thread I understand that you are in a context where you can’t await, that you expect the invocation to take very little time, and that the library offers no complementary sync interface.
As far was I know you’re stuck in this case. I consider the stubborn refusal to add “resolve this promise synchronously right now” a major flaw in js.
Given the nature of JS running only on a single thread. Promises/asynchronity is the only way to keep the browser from locking up.
Thus insisting on any other way is a major flaw in the developer not the language.
Thus insisting on any other way is a major flaw in the developer not the language.
I mean, I understand the idea, but this is a pretty asshole way to frame it. I don’t think I deserve that, and certainly OP doesn’t deserve that.
> Given the nature of JS running only on a single thread.
No no, I think you found the language flaw.
its a good idea to be as non blocking as possible especially on time and resource consuming tasks like IO, cryptography, ...
just use await in an async function.
just use
awaitin anasync function.
Sure, I'll just put await and async everywhere. Oh wait, I can't. A constructor can't be async so now I need to restructure my code to use async factories instead of constructors. Wonderful...
A constructor can't be async so now I need to restructure my code to use async factories instead of constructors
It sounds like you’re trying to do OOD/OOP. In js that’s usually not the way to go. You might want to restructure into a more functional architecture anyway.
Sounds like an architectural issue to begin with. A constructor shouldn't do the heavy lifting to begin with.
You consider calculating the hash of a few bytes to be heavy lifting?
The API doesn't restrict the amount of bytes to be hashed. So yeah it's still heavy lifting.
Trigger a loading event after the constructor is finished that the view model takes to calculate your hash.
looks
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SubtleCrypto/digest
Well, it can't take a stream as input, so it's not that an output can't be provided because the input might not be fully known.
And it seems kind of odd if the aim is parallel execution.
pokes around a bit more
I don't really code in Javascript much, but as I very vaguely recall, at least in browsers, Javascript doesn't normally have the ability to do concurrent execution...there's some sort of mechanism that isolates code running in parallel, Web Workers, as I recall.
One of the things that Mozilla's docs on Promise mentions is this:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise
The Promise class offers four static methods to facilitate async task concurrency
Note that JavaScript is single-threaded by nature, so at a given instant, only one task will be executing, although control can shift between different promises, making execution of the promises appear concurrent. Parallel execution in JavaScript can only be achieved through worker threads.
So, one thing that you normally have to do in APIs that have cooperative multithreading going on is, if you want the system to stay responsive, is to make sure that if you're gonna yield to other threads if you're gonna be doing some work for an extended period of time. Like, say you've got something going on that's CPU-bound and something that's network-bound...you don't want to have one blocking on the other. You want to slice up the tasks and switch back and forth between them to keep the network connection saturated.
I am thinking that it's possible that the goal here is to do that. Like, you might want to be generating a hash of a big block of data, say a couple gigs. Maybe it takes Javascript a while to do that. So you generate a Promise for that computation, along for the other things you need to do, and then wait for any of them to complete.
If you don't have anything else going on in your particular codebase, then you can just immediately block until the Promise is fulfilled.
That being said, that's just my kneejerk reaction based on about a two-minute skim and some familiarity with past systems that have worked in kinda similar ways.
To add - blocking the main thread on a long running task in the browser can make the page unresponsive. There's not really a way, as far as I know, to "block until a promise completes", which might be the source of the frustration. It seems to me that was intentional by the ones who designed this function.
That seems like a good guess, I can see why async hashing could be useful. But it would be nice if there was an alternative API that was blocking so my code wouldn't get infected with async/await all over the place...