AngularJS - why promises ($q) with $http? - angularjs

Question

I am learning AngularJS after converting from jQuery for a few years. And some bits are much more intuitive. Some not so much :).
I am trying to get my head around the use of promises, particularly $q in use with $http and there does not seem to be too much information around these two combined that I can find.
Why would I use promises in place of the success/error callback? They both make uses of callbacks in reality, so why is a promise considered better? E.g. I could set up a get(...) function like follows:
function get(url, success, error) {
success = success || function () {};
error = error || function () {};
$http.get(url)
.success(function (data) {
success(data);
})
.error(function (error) {
error(error);
});
}
get('http://myservice.com/JSON/',
function () {
// do something with data
},
function () {
// display an error
}
);
Which is good(?) because it gives me complete control over what is happening. If I call get(...) then I can control any success/errors wherever get is called.
If I convert this to use promises, then I get:
function get(url) {
return $http.get(url)
.then(function (data) {
return data;
},
function (error) {
return error;
});
}
get('http://myservice.com/JSON/')
.then(function (data) {
// do something with data
});
// cannot handle my errors?
Which is condensed, I agree; we also do not have to explicitly worry about the success/error callback, but I seem to have lost control over my error callback for a start - because I cannot configure a second callback to handle an error.
Which means that if I use this function in a service which can be used by multiple controllers, then I cannot update the UI to alert the user to an error.
Am I missing something? Is there a reason why promises is preferred? I cannot find an example why.

Answer 1

Usually you'll deal with asynchronous tasks in Javascript with callbacks;
$.get('path/to/data', function(data) {
console.log(data);
});
It works fine, but start to complicate when you go into whats called the 'callback hell';
$.get('path/to/data', function(data) {
$.get('path/to/data2' + data, function(data2) {
$.get('path/to/data3' + data2, function(data3) {
manipulate(data, data2, data3);
}, errorCb);
}, errorCb);
}, errorCb);
The alternative is working with promises and defered object;
Deferreds - representing units of work
Promises - representing data from those Deferreds
Sticking to this agenda can assist to you in every extreme asynctask case:
You have a regular call that need to get data from the server, manipulate it, and return to the scope
You have multiple calls that each is depending on the precious one (cahin strategy)
You want to send multiple (parallel) calls and handle their success in 1 block
You want your code to be orginized (prevent dealing with handling results on controllers)
Your task is the easiest one to handle with $q and $http
function get(url) {
var deferred = $q.defer();
$http.get(url)
.success(function (data) {
deferred.resolve(data);
})
.error(function (error) {
deferred.reject(error);
});
return deferred.promise;
}
And calling the service function is the same
get('http://myservice.com/JSON/')
.then(function (data) {
// do something with data
});
// cannot handle my errors?

Answer 2

You can handle the error like this:
get('http://myservice.com/JSON/')
.then(function (data) {
// do something with data
},
function (error) {
//do something with error
});
But unfortunately since you have already caught the error then the final error won't be triggered. You will also have the same problem with success.
To get that to work you ned to use $q.
function get(url) {
var deferred = $q.defer();
$http.get(url)
.success(function (data) {
deferred.resolve(data);
})
.error(function (error) {
deferred.reject(error);
});
return deferred.promise;
}
Also there is no need to pass in success and error functions because you can use promises instead.