angularjs - Should services expose their asynchronicity?

Question

I'm writing a service that will retrieve data asynchronously ($http or $resource). I can hide the fact that it is asynchronous by returning an array that will initially be empty, but that will eventually get populated:

.factory('NewsfeedService1', ['$http', function($http) {
   var posts = [];
   var server_queried = false;
   return {
      posts: function() {
         if(!server_queried) {
            $http.get('json1.txt').success(
              function(data) {
                server_queried = true;
                angular.copy(data, posts);
            });
         }
         return posts;
      }
   };
}])
.controller('Ctrl1', ['$scope','NewsfeedService1',
function($scope, NewsfeedService1) {
    $scope.posts = NewsfeedService1.posts();
}])

Or I can expose the asynchronicity by returning a promise:

.factory('NewsfeedService2', ['$http', function($http) {
  var posts = [];
  var server_queried = false;
  var promise;
  return {
     posts_async: function() {
       if(!promise || !server_queried) {
         promise = $http.get('json2.txt').then(
           function(response) {
              server_queried = true;
              posts = response.data;
              return posts;
         });
       }
       return promise;
     }
  };
}])

.controller('Ctrl2', ['$scope','NewsfeedService2',
function($scope, NewsfeedService2) {
  NewsfeedService2.posts_async().then(
    function(posts) {
      $scope.posts = posts;
  });
  // or take advantage of the fact that $q promises are
  // recognized by Angular's templating engine:
  // (note that Peter and Pawel's AngularJS book recommends against this, p. 100)
  $scope.posts2 = NewsfeedService2.posts_async();
}]);

(Plunker - if someone wants to play around with the above two implementations.)

One potential advantage of exposing the asychronicity would be that I can deal with errors in the controller by adding an error handler to the then() method. However, I'll likely be catching and dealing with $http errors in an application-wide interceptor.

So, when should a service's asynchronicity be exposed?

Answer 1

My guess is that you'll find people on both sides of this fence. Personally, I feel that you should always expose the asynchronicity of a library or function (or more correctly: I feel that you should never hide the asynchronicity of a library or function). The main reason is transparency; for example, will this work?

app.controller('MyController', function(NewsfeedService) {
  $scope.posts = NewsfeedService.posts();
  doSomethingWithPosts($scope.posts); // <-- will this work?
});

If you're using the first method (e.g. $resource), it won't, even though $scope.posts is technically an array. If doSomethingWithPosts has its own asynchronous operations, you could end up with a race condition. Instead, you have to use asynchronous code anyway:

app.controller('MyController', function(NewsfeedService) {
  $scope.posts = NewsfeedService.posts(function() {
    doSomethingWithPosts($scope.posts);
  });
});

(Of course, you can make the callback accept the posts as an argument, but I still think it's confusing and non-standard.)

Luckily, we have promises, and the very purpose of a promise is to represent the future value of an operation. Furthermore, since promises created with Angular's $q libraries can be bound to views, there's nothing wrong with this:

app.controller('MyController', function(NewsfeedService) {
  $scope.posts = NewsfeedService.posts();
  // $scope.posts is a promise, but when it resolves
  // the AngularJS view will work as intended.
});

[Update: you can no longer bind promises directly to the view; you must wait for the promise to be resolved and assign a scope property manually.]

As an aside, Restangular, a popular alternative to $resource, uses promises, and AngularJS' own $resource will be supporting them in 1.2 (they may already support them in the latest 1.1.x's).