I've been reading for some tome ago about "asynchronous communication between microservices" and its benefits.
Something doesn't fit on my mind:
What about if client only is able to make synchronous communicacion to my service?
Or what about, if service has to be able to dispath both synchro and asynchro communication?
I mean, I can design a "barista system" like this:
Dispatchning an event from "counter service" and send a "coffee is ready" to client, when "counter service" receive an "coffee is ready event" from "barista service".
Some counterparts here:
How "counter service" sends feedback to client? Request connection has been release and then server is not able to point to client.
What about if client are not able to treat with asynchromously communiations?
I mean, what about if client is only able to handle synchronous communication on a "asynchronously inter-service communication"?
Which feedback techniques are available here? I mean, are there more modern techniques besides of "polling request status"?
If a client is only able to communicate synchronously (i.e. no interaction besides client makes request and then client gets response is possible), then you essentially have two options:
You can respond to the initial request with some unique identifier that the client can use to request a [more] final response. In the coffee bar example, this would be like placing an order over the phone, being told an order number, coming into the shop at some later point, and asking "is order XYZ ready?". This is fairly lightweight, at least as long as the client doesn't just spam you with request updates (as in rapid polling).
Alternatively, you can present a synchronous API even if the internals are asynchronous: you just need a component that holds the interaction open until the response is final. The analogy here would be if an order is placed over the phone, the order taker is required to stay on the line with the customer until the customer comes in to pick up the coffee. If the connection breaks, the coffee is lost.
Related
I read a lot of questions around the same use case but couldn't find any proper answer on Google.
One theory is the Server keep a long poll at sender (A) and whenever a typing event is triggered it sends update to server.
On the receiver's end (B), it keep another long polling request to the server and as soon as the server get's update from sender(A) it sends it to the receiver (B).
But this seems dubious, in the sense that servers have to handle so many (~millions) of long polling requests at any given time and will slow down the servers.
Most chat systems probably keep open P2P TCP connections with their clients.
This solves many issues in chat systems such as avoiding polling on multiple scenarios, not only the ones you mentioned but receiving new messages as well.
I recommend checking out this video
In this type of design "Someone is typing" becomes just one new type of event, it has a SRC and a DST and the Backend infrastructure takes care of routing the event to the correct websocket for the DST client.
I imagine as others mentioned that the clients will throttle the events as to avoid network traffic on every key press.
I have a PUB server. How can it tell what filters are subscribed to, so the server knows what data it has to create?The server doesn't need to create data once no SUB clients are interested in.
Say the set of possible filters is huge ( or infinite ), but subscribers at any given time are just subscribed to a few of them.
Example: Say SUB clients are only subscribed to a weather feed data for a few area codes in New York and Paris. Then the PUB server shouldn't have to create weather data for every other area code in every other city in the world, just to throw it all away again.
How do you find out all the subscribed to filters in a PUB server?
If there is no easy way, how do I solve this in another way?
I'll answer my own question here in case its of use to anyone else.
The requirements where:
The client should be able to ask the server what ids (topics) are available for subscription.
The client should chooses the id's it is interested in and tell the server about it.
The server should created data for all subscribed too id's and send that data to clients.
The client and server should not block/hang if either one goes away.
Implementation:
Step 1. Is two way traffic, and is done with REQ/REP sockets.
Step 2. Is one way traffic from one client to one server, and is done by PUSH/PULL sockets.
Step 3. Is one way traffic from one server to many clients, and is done by PUB/SUB sockets.
Step 4. The receives can block either the server or client if the other one is not there. Therefore I followed the "lazy pirate pattern" of checking if there is anything to receive in the queue, before I try and receive. (If there is nothing in the queue I'll check again on the next loop of the program etc).
Step 4+. Clients can die without unsubscribing, and the server wont know about it, It will continue to publish data for those ids. A solution is for the client to resends the subscription information (with a timestamp) every so often to the server. This works as a heartbeat for the ids the client has subscribed too. If the client dies without unsubscribing, the server notices that some subscription ids have not been refreshed in a while (the timestamp). The server removes those ids.
This solution seems to work fine. It was a lot of low level work though. It would be nice if zeromq was a bit higher level, and had some common and reliable architectures/frameworks ready to use out of the box.
I'm trying to understand whether the HTML5 Web Notifications API can help me out, but I'm falling short in understanding how it works.
I'd like user_a to be able to send user_b a message within my webapp.
I'd like user_b to receive a notification of this.
Can the web notifications API help here? Does it let me specifically target a user (rather than notify everyone the site has been updated_? I can't see how I would create an alert for one person.
Can anyone help me understand a little more?
The notifications API is client side, so it needs to get events from another client-side technology. Here, read THIS: http://nodejs.org/api/. Just kidding. Node.js+socket.io is probably the best way to go here, you can emit events to one or all clients (broadcast). That's a push scenario. Or each user could be pulling their notifications from the server.
HTML5 Web Notifications API gives you ability to display desktop notifications that your application has generated.
What you are trying to achieve is a different thing and web notification is just a part of your scenario.
Depending upon how you are managing your application, for chat and messaging purpose as humbolight mentioned, you should look into node.js. it will provide you the necessary back-end to manage sending and receiving messages between users.
To notify a user that (s)he has received a message, you can opt for ajax polling on client side.
Simply create a javascript that pings the server every x seconds and checks if there is any notification or new message available for this user.
If response is successful, then you can use HTML5 notification API to show a message to user that (s)he has a new message.
The main problem with long polling is server load, and bandwidth usage even when there are no messages, and if number of users are in thousands then you can expect your server always busy responding to poll calls.
An alternate is to use Server Sent Events API, where you send a request to server and then server PUSHES the notifications/messages to the client as soon as they are available.
This reduces the unnecessary client->server polling and seems much better option in your case.
To get started you can check a good tutorial at
HTML5Rocks
What you're looking for is WebSocket. It's the technology that allows a client (browser) to open a persistent connection to the server and receive data from it at the server's whim, rather than having to "poll" the server to see if there's anything new.
Other answers here have already mentioned node.js, but Node is simply one (though arguably the best) option for implementing websockets on your server. You might also be comfortable with Ratchet, which is a websocket server library for PHP, or Tornado which is in Python.
How you handle your real-time communication is up to you. Websockets are merely the underlying technology that you can use to pass data back and forth. The client side of this will be fairly easy, but on the server side, you'll need a mechanism for websocket handlers to get information from each other. Look at tools like ZeroMQ for handling queues, and Memcached or Redis to handle large swaths of data which don't need to be stored permanently.
I'm working on a web application that submits tasks to a master/worker system that farms out the tasks to any of a series of worker instances. The work queue master runs as a separate process (on a separate machine altogether) and tasks are submitted to the master via HTTP/REST requests. Once tasks are submitted to the work queue, client applications can submit another HTTP request to get status information about tasks.
For my web application, I'd like it to provide some sort of progress bar view that gives the user some indication of how far along task processing has come. The obvious way to implement this would be an AJAX progress meter widget that periodically polls the work queue for status on the tasks that have been submitted. My question is, is there a better way to accomplish this without the frequent polling?
I've considered having the client web application open up a server socket on which it could listen for notifications from the work master. Another similar thought I've had is to use XMPP or a similar protocol for the status notifications. (Of course, the master/worker system would need to be updated to provide notifications either way but I own the code for that so can make any necessary updates myself.)
Any thoughts on the best way to set up a notification system like this? Is the extra effort involved worth it, or is the simple polling solution the way to go?
Polling
The client keeps polling the server to get the status of the response.
Pros
Being really RESTful means cacheable and scaleable.
Cons
Not the best responsiveness if you do not want to poll your server too much.
Persistent connection
The server does not close its HTTP connection with the client until the response is complete. The server can send intermediate status through this connection using HTTP multiparts.
Comet is the most famous framework to implement this behaviour.
Pros
Best responsiveness, almost real-time notifications from the server.
Cons
Connection limit is limited on a web server, keeping a connection open for too long might, at best load your server, at worst open the server to Denial of Service attacks.
Client as a server
Make the server post status updates and the response to the client as if it were another RESTful application.
Pros
Best of every worlds, no resources are wasted waiting for the response, either on the server or on the client side.
Cons
You need a full HTTP server and web application stack on the client
Firewalls and routers with their default "no incoming connections at all" will get in the way.
Feel free to edit to add your thoughts or a new method!
I guess it depends on a few factors
How accurate the feedback can be (1 percent, 5 percent, 50 percent) Accurate feedback makes it worth pursuing some kind of progress bar and comet style push. If you can only say "Busy... hold on... almost there... done" then a simple ajax "are we there yet" poll is certainly easier to code.
How timely the Done message has to be seen by the client
How long each task takes (1 second, 10 seconds, 10 minutes)
1 second makes it a bit moot. 10 seconds makes it worth it. 10 minutes means you're better off suggesting the user goes for a coffee break :-)
How many concurrent requests there will be
Unless you've got a "special" server, live push style systems tend to eat connections and you'll be maxed out pretty quickly. Having to throw more webservers in for a fancy progress bar might hurt the budget.
I've got some sample code on 871184 that shows a hand rolled "forever frame" which seems to work out well. The project I developed that for isn't hammered all that hard though, the operations take a few seconds and we can give pretty accurate percent. The code uses asp.net and jquery, but the general techniques will work with any server and javascript framework.
edit As John points out, status reporting probably isn't the job of the RESTful service. But there's nothing that says you can't open an iframe on the client that hooks to a page on the server that polls the service. Theory says the server and the service will at least be closer to one another :-)
Look into Comet. You make a single request to the server and the server blocks and holds the connection open until an update in status occurs. Once that happens the response is sent and committed. The browser receives this response, handles it and immediately re-requests the same URL. The effect is that of events being pushed to the browser. There are pros and cons and it might not be appropriate for all use cases but would provide the most timely status updates.
My opinion is to stick with the polling solution, but you might be interested in this Wikipedia article on HTTP Push technologies.
REST depends on HTTP, which is a request/response protocol. I don't think you're going to get a pure HTTP server calling the client back with status.
Besides, status reporting isn't the job of the service. It's up to the client to decide when, or if, it wants status reported.
One approach I have used is:
When the job is posted to the server, the server responds back a pubnub-channel id (one could alternatively use Google's PUB-SUB kind of service).
The client on browser subscribes to that channel and starts listening for messages.
The worker/task server publishes status on that pubnub channel to update the progress.
On receiving messages on the subscribed pubnub-channel, the client updates the web UI.
You could also use self-refreshing iframe, but AJAX call is much better. I don't think there is any other way.
PS: If you would open a socket from client, that wouldn't change much - PHP browser would show the page as still "loading", which is not very user-friendly. (assuming you would push or flush buffer to have other things displayed before)
We are currently developing a server whereby a client requests interest in changes to specific data elements and when that data changes the server pushes the data back to the client. There has vigorous debate at work about whether or not it would be better for the client to poll for this data.
What is considered to be the ideal method, in terms of performance, scalability and network load, of data transfer in a near real time environment?
Update:
Here's a Link that gives some food for thought with regards to UI updates.
There's probably no ideal method for every situation, but push is usually better and used more often. It allows to optimize server caching and data transfers, which helps performance and scalability, and cuts network traffic a bit by avoiding client requests and empty responses. It can be important advantage for a server to operate in it's own pace and supply clients with data when it is ready.
Industry standarts - such as OPC, GID - support both. Server pushes updates to subscribed clients, but client can pull some rarely used data out without bothering with subscription.
As long as the client initiates the connection (to get passed firewall and NAT problems) either way is fine.
If there are several different type of data you need to send, you might want to have the client specify which type he wants, but this is only needed once per connection. Then you can have the server continue to send updates as it has them.
It would be less network traffic to have the server send updates without the client continually asking for updates.
What do you have on the client's side? Many firewalls allow outgoing requests but block incoming requests. In other words, pull may be your only option if you are crossing the Internet unless you are sending out e-mails.