Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B721768B2 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 21:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 21960 invoked by uid 500); 22 May 2011 21:17:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 21924 invoked by uid 500); 22 May 2011 21:17:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 21916 invoked by uid 99); 22 May 2011 21:17:24 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 May 2011 21:17:24 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [72.167.82.82] (HELO p3plsmtpa01-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net) (72.167.82.82) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sun, 22 May 2011 21:17:16 +0000 Received: (qmail 6267 invoked from network); 22 May 2011 21:16:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (184.146.163.146) by p3plsmtpa01-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.82) with ESMTP; 22 May 2011 21:16:53 -0000 Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 17:17:26 -0400 From: MK To: user@couchdb.apache.org Subject: Re: couchDB and node.js double bind Message-Id: <20110522171726.29e92703.mk@cognitivedissonance.ca> In-Reply-To: References: <20110522134328.345ba41b.mk@cognitivedissonance.ca> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.0 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Sun, 22 May 2011 23:49:38 +0300 afters wrote: > Luckily for you, some of your assumptions are wrong. > > You should have no problem doing an "async-for-loop" with Node. Read > this: > http://metaduck.com/post/2675027550/asynchronous-iteration-patterns-in-node-js Thanks, dunno why I didn't think of that (using a counter in the callback and then calling a named func when it hits the total). -- "Enthusiasm is not the enemy of the intellect." (said of Irving Howe) "The angel of history[...]is turned toward the past." (Walter Benjamin)