It ain't about the callbacks...

... it's about the flow control

Programmers tend to be very opinionated about programming with callbacks.

It's just a programming style, not a big deal usually, but it becomes an issue when a platform forces you to use only the callback style. I'm talking about you, JavaScript.

In my opinion people forget an important point in the discussion about callbacks.

The problem is: different programming styles1 encourage different solutions, and not all solutions are equally good. In particular forcing people to use callbacks encourages bad solutions to common problems. Most annoyingly it makes it very easy to forget about data flow control.

Let me start with an example of a broken Node.js API.

Yup, it's an Echo server again

Here's a naive echo server in node.js:

var net = require ( 'net' ); var server = net . createServer (); server . on ( 'connection' , function ( c ) { c . on ( 'data' , function ( data ) { c . write ( data ); }); }); server . listen ( 10007 )

There are two things wrong in this code:

It's impossible to slow down the pace of accepting new incoming client connections. A noisy client will be able to crash our server, as c.write is non-blocking and will buffer an infinite amount of data in memory (this can be partially solved with a node.js Stream API, more on that later).

1) The implicit accept

The first problem: we can't slow down the pace of accepting new connections. The accept(2) syscall is being implicitly handled by node.

As far as I know there isn't a way around it. It's caused by the design of the non-blocking API that doesn't support flow-control. You can't tell the server "don't accept any more client connections, please!"

An astute reader may notice the server.maxConnections property. But this is not the same - it causes client sockets to be closed when the limit is reached. I don't want clients to get actively rejected, I don't want to accept them in the first place!

In my ideal programming environment the accept would be blocking. I'd have a main coroutine for a server looking like this:

while true : if can_serve_more_clients () : client = server . accept () deal_with_the_client ( client ) else: block_until_can_serve_more_clients ()

To work around this problem node.js could add a new method to "pause" the net.Server for a while. But this is a bad design as well. Let's explain this using our second illustration - the design of node.js Streams.

2) Streams suffer a race condition

Node.js Streams are a common API that support basic flow control for common data sources that can read and/or write . In our code the client socket is a valid node.js Stream and using Streams API our code gets even simpler:

var net = require ( 'net' ); var server = net . createServer (); server . on ( 'connection' , function ( c ) { c . pipe ( c ); }); server . listen ( 10007 )

The pipe command forwards all data received on the data event to the write method.

This code doesn't suffer from the described problem - now a single client won't be able to crash node with out-of-memory. It works as follows: on the data event bytes are passed to the write method. The write method can return false , meaning "please stop writing for now". The stream understands this and calls the pause method on the reader. On the drain event the reader resumes .

As a result the stream will stop reading from c if data can't be written to c . Clever, right?

First, I believe most node.js programmers (including myself) don't understand Streams and just don't implement the Stream interfaces correctly.

But even if Streams were properly implemented everywhere the API suffers a race condition: it's possible to get plenty of data before the writer reacts and stops the reader. The stream needs to actively inform the reader when something happens to the writer. It's like a line of people passing bricks - when the last person says: "no more bricks please!" everybody in the line will have their hands full! The longer the queue the more bricks will get "buffered".

Particularly in node using Streams it's possible to receive plenty of data before the back pressure kicks in.

var net = require ( 'net' ); var server = net . createServer (); server . on ( 'connection' , function ( c ) { c . pipe ( c ); c . on ( 'data' , function ( d ) { console . log ( 'received' , d . length ); }); c . on ( 'drain' , function ( d ) { console . log ( 'it\'s okay to receive' ); }); var p = c . push ; c . push = function ( chunk ) { var r = p . apply ( c , [ chunk ] ); if ( r == false ) console . log ( 'stop receiving now!' ); return r ; } }); server . listen ( 10007 );

When you run this code and start a noisy client that floods the server with plenty of data, you'll see:

it's okay to receive received 65536 stop receiving! received 65536

Once again: we received a chunk of data after we told the server to stop receiving. In the real world the problem is even more serious: there is usually a significant delay between the reader and the writer, so even more data will get buffered.

Let's try to make it more concrete: imagine a web server that needs to speak to Redis, SQL database and read a local file before crafting an HTTP response. Then, the writer may notice the network connection is slow and react accordingly: tell the reader to stop receiving new requests from the client. But in the meantime the time has passed and your server could have already received thousands of HTTP requests from the evil client. The race condition in the Stream API is serious due to the fact that the delay between receiving an evil request and noticing that evil client doesn't read can be significant.

In our code the only solution to this problem is to deliver exactly one data chunk and wait for a confirmation before receiving another one. Using the bricks analogy: the last person would shout "please give me a new brick" when it dealt with the last one, thus guaranteeing that no matter how many hands are in the line, at most one brick will be processed at a time.

This damages the throughput but guarantees we won't run out of memory even in case of an evil client.

Push and pull

In programming, the code can be written in one of two ways:

It can "pull" the data from the source.

It can "push" the data to the destination.

Synchronous code usually does the first thing, callbacks do the second. Neither is better or worse, but in the "pull" model it's much easier to reason about the flow control. On the other hand in a badly written "push" code a fast producer (or a slow consumer) can overwhelm the program.

Synchronous code embeds the flow control in its structure. It's much harder to express the data flow control using callbacks2.

Finally, please don't get me wrong. Although this rant is focused around node.js it's not limited to it. It's generally hard to think about end-to-end flow control in callback based environments. It's impossible to design good callback based API's when you don't have tools to deal with data flow control.