wrap multiple functions in same throat

[wheresrhys]

Hi,

Would you be open to a PR implementing the ability to throttle multiple functions with the same throat instance. Something like

myLimiter = throat(2);
lib.method1 = myLimiter.wrap(lib.method1)
lib.method2 = myLimiter.wrap(lib.method2)

The use case is where e.g. you use one method to read from a db, and another to write to it, but you want to place a limit on the total connections

[ForbesLindesay]

You can always just do something like:

myLimiter = throat(2)
function myLimiterWrap(fn) {
  return function () {
    var self = this, args = arguments
    return myLimiter(function () {
      return fn.apply(this, args)
    })
  })
}
lib.method1 = myLimiterWrap(lib.method1)
lib.method2 = myLimiterWrap(lib.method2)

I'm not sure I see a lot of benefit to solving this at a library level.

[wheresrhys]

I suppose I would see it in these terms: Throat gives you the ability to
create a queue and associate that queue with either a single function to be
used arbitrarily many times, or arbitrarily many functions to be used once
each. The wrap function would allow all the use cases that fall somewhere
in the middle to be covered, with probably very little extra code, which I
think would make your library (a very useful one already) more flexible and
powerful for very little cost

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 at 1:18 p.m., Forbes Lindesay notifications@github.com
wrote:

You can always just do something like:

myLimiter = throat(2)function myLimiterWrap(fn) {
return function () {
var self = this, args = arguments
return myLimiter(function () {
return fn.apply(this, args)
})
})
}
lib.method1 = myLimiterWrap(lib.method1)
lib.method2 = myLimiterWrap(lib.method2)

I'm not sure I see a lot of benefit to solving this at a library level.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment)
.