We are designing an API for an application where the clients (external) can
interact with it synchronously to say:
a) request a plan
b) cancel a plan etc
However once the plan is made, the decision as to whether a plan is
approved or disapproved is done asynchronously. The application itself
can send other notifications to the clients asynchronously. This part has
been implemented using spring's stomp over websocket framework. This
work perfectly fine.
Now, coming to the synchronous part of the API, the plan is to provide
a RESTful interface for the interaction. If this is done this way, the
clients will have to build two different client API's, one using http
for making RESTful calls and another using a stomp client to consume notifications.
Should we rather make it accessible via one interface?
I am not convinced of using Stomp for synchronous calls since I think the REST framework
will address the use case well. However I am concerned about the need for the clients to do both, although it is for different functionality.
Will it be okay to support both? Is this a good design practice. Can someone please advice?
HTTP based clients could a) send requests ('simple polling), in long intervalls to limit bandwidth usage, or b) use HTTP long polling (blocking) to immediately return control to the client code when the server sends for a response
Related
I come across many blog that say using rabbitmq improve the performance of microservices due to asynchronous nature of rabbitmq.
I don't understand in that case how the the http response is send to end user I am elaborating my question below more clearly.
user send a http request to microservice1(which is user facing service)
microservice1 send it to rabbitmq because it need some service from microservice2
microservice2 receive the request process it and send the response to rabbitmq
microservice1 receive the response from rabbitmq
NOW how this response is send to browser?
Does microservice1 waits untill it receive the response from rabbitmq?
If yes then how it become aynchronous??
It's a good question. To answer, you have to imagine the server running one thread at a time. Making a request to a microservice via RestTemplate is a blocking request. The user clicks a button on the web page, which triggers your spring-boot method in microservice1. In that method, you make a request to microservice2, and the microservice1 does a blocking wait for the response.
That thread is busy waiting for microservice2 to complete the request. Threads are not expensive, but on a very busy server, they can be a limiting factor.
RabbitMQ allows microservice1 to queue up a message to microservice2, and then release the thread. Your receive message will be trigger by the system (spring-boot / RabbitMQ) when microservice2 processes the message and provides a response. That thread in the thread pool can be used to process other users' requests in the meantime. When the RabbitMQ response comes, the thread pool uses an unused thread to process the remainder of the request.
Effectively, you're making the server running microservice1 have more threads available more of the time. It only becomes a problem when the server is under heavy load.
Good question , lets discuss one by one
Synchronous behavior:
Client send HTTP or any request and waits for the response HTTP.
Asynchronous behavior:
Client sends the request, There's another thread that is waiting on the socket for the response. Once response arrives, the original sender is notified (usually, using a callback like structure).
Now we can talk about blocking vs nonblocking call
When you are using spring rest then each call will initiate new thread and waiting for response and block your network , while nonblocking call all call going via single thread and pushback will return response without blocking network.
Now come to your question
Using rabbitmq improve the performance of microservices due to
asynchronous nature of rabbitmq.
No , performance is depends on your TPS hit and rabbitmq not going to improve performance .
Messaging give you two different type of messaging model
Synchronous messaging
Asynchronous messaging
Using Messaging you will get loose coupling and fault tolerance .
If your application need blocking call like response is needed else cannot move use Rest
If you can work without getting response go ahaead with non blocking
If you want to design your app loose couple go with messaging.
In short above all are architecture style how you want to architect your application , performance depends on scalability .
You can combine your app with rest and messaging and non-blocking with messaging.
In your scenario microservice 1 could be rest blocking call give call other api using rest template or web client and or messaging queue and once get response will return rest json call to your web app.
I would take another look at your architecture. In general, with microservices - especially user-facing ones that must be essentially synchronous, it's an anti-pattern to have ServiceA have to make a call to ServiceB (which may, in turn, call ServiceC and so on...) to return a response. That condition indicates those services are tightly coupled which makes them fragile. For example: if ServiceB goes down or is overloaded in your example, ServiceA also goes offline due to no fault of its own. So, probably one or more of the following should occur:
Deploy the related services behind a facade that encloses the entire domain - let the client interact synchronously with the facade and let the facade handle talking to multiple services behind the scenes.
Use MQTT or AMQP to publish data as it gets added/changed in ServiceB and have ServiceA subscribe to pick up what it needs so that it can fulfill the user request without explicitly calling another service
Consider merging ServiceA and ServiceB into a single service that can handle requests without having to make external calls
You can also send the HTTP request from the client to the service, set the application-state to waiting or similar, and have the consuming application subscribe to a eventSuccess or eventFail integration message from the bus. The main point of this idea is that you let daisy-chained services (which, again, I don't like) take their turns and whichever service "finishes" the job publishes an integration event to let anyone who's listening know. You can even do things like pass webhook URI's with the initial request to have services call the app back directly on completion (or use SignalR, or gRPC, or...)
The way we use RabbitMQ is to integrate services in real-time so that each service always has the info it needs to be responsive all by itself. To use your example, in our world ServiceB publishes events when data changes. ServiceA only cares about, and subscribes to a small subset of those events (and typically only a field or two of the event data), but it knows within seconds (usually less) when B has changed and it has all the information it needs to respond to requests. Each service literally has no idea what other services exist, it just knows events that it cares about (and that conform to a contract) arrive from time-to-time and it needs to pay attention to them.
You could also use events and make the whole flow async. In this scenario microservice1 creates an event representing the user request and then return a requested created response immediately to the user. You can then notify the user later when the request is finished processing.
I recommend the book Designing Event-Driven Systems written by Ben Stopford.
I asked a similar question to Chris Richardson (www.microservices.io). The result was:
Option 1
You use something like websockets, so the microservice1 can send the response, when it's done.
Option 2
microservice1 responds immediately (OK - request accepted). The client pulls from the server repeatedly until the state changed. Important is that microservice1 stores some state about the request (ie. initial state "accepted", so the client can show the spinner) which is modified, when you finally receive the response (ie. update state to "complete").
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.
Currently I am using Jersey 1.0 and about to switch to 2.0. For REST requests the may last over a second or two I use the following pattern:
Client calls GET or PUT
Server returns a polling URL to the client
The client polls the URL until it gets a redirect to the completed resource
Pretty standard and straightforward. However, I noticed that Jersey 2.0 has an AsyncResponse capability. But it looks like this is done with no changes on the wire. In other words, the client still blocks for the result while the server is asynchronously processing the request.
So what good is this? Should I be using it instead of my current asynchronous approach for calls >1 second? Or is it really just to keep the connections freed on the server for calls that would be only a few hundred milliseconds?
I want my server to be as scalable as possible but the approach I use now can be tedious for the client. AsyncResponse seems super simple but I'm not sure how it would work for something like a heroku service where you want very short connection times.
AsyncResponse presumably gives you more scalability within the web app server for standard standard requests in terms of thread pooling resources, but I don't think it changes anything about the client experience which will continue to block on read on their connection. Therefore, if you already implemented a polling solution from your client side, this won't add much of any value to you imho.
Similar questions have been asked before and they all reached the conclusion that AJAX will not become obsolete. But in what ways is ajax better than websockets?
With socket.io, it's easy to fall back to flash or long polling, so browser compatibility seems to be a non-issue.
Websockets are bidirectional. Where ajax would make an asynchronous request, websocket client would send a message to the server. The POST/GET parameters can be encoded in JSON.
So what is wrong with using 100% websockets? If every visitor maintains a persistent websocket connection to the server, would that be more wasteful than making a few ajax requests throughout the visit session?
I think it would be more wasteful. For every connected client you need some sort of object/function/code/whatever on the server paired up with that one client. A socket handler, or a file descriptor, or however your server is setup to handle the connections.
With AJAX you don't need a 1:1 mapping of server side resource to client. Your # of clients can scale less dependently than your server-side resources. Even node.js has its limitations to how many connections it can handle and keep open.
The other thing to consider is that certain AJAX responses can be cached too. As you scale up you can add an HTTP cache to help reduce the load from frequent AJAX requests.
Short Answer
Keeping a websocket active has a cost, for both the client and the server, whether Ajax will have a cost only once, depending on what you're doing with it.
Long Answer
Websockets are often misunderstood because of this whole "Hey, use Ajax, that will do !". No, Websockets are not a replacement for Ajax. They can potentially be applied to the same fields, but there are cases where using Websocket is absurd.
Let's take a simple example : A dynamic page which loads data after the page is loaded on the client side. It's simple, make an Ajax call. We only need one direction, from the server to the client. The client will ask for these data, the server will send them to the client, done. Why would you implement websockets for such a task ? You don't need your connection to be opened all the time, you don't need the client to constantly ask the server, you don't need the server to notify the client. The connection will stay open, it will waste resources, because to keep a connection open you need to constantly check it.
Now for a chat application things are totally different. You need your client to be notified by the server instead of forcing the client to ask the server every x seconds or milliseconds if something is new. It would make no sense.
To understand better, see that as two persons. One of the two is the server, the over is the client. Ajax is like sending a letter. The client sends a letter, the server responds with another letter. The fact is that, for a chat application the conversation would be like that :
"Hey Server, got something for me ?
- No.
- Hey Server, got something for me ?
- No.
- Hey Server, got something for me ?
- Yes, here it is."
The server can't actually send a letter to the client, if the client never asked for an answer. It's a huge waste of resources. Because for every Ajax request, even if it's cached, you need to make an operation on the server side.
Now the case I discussed earlier with the data loaded with Ajax. Imagine the client is on the phone with the server. Keeping the connection active has a cost. It costs electricity and you have to pay your operator. Now why would you need to call someone and keep him on phone for an hour, if you just want that person to tell you 3 words ? Send a goddamn letter.
In conclusion Websockets are not a total replacement for Ajax !
Sometimes you will need Ajax where Websocket usage is absurd.
Edit : The SSE case
That technology isn't used very widely but it can be useful. As its name states it, Server-Sent Events are a one-way push from the server to the client. The client doesn't request anything, the server just sends the data.
In short :
- Unidirectional from the client : Ajax
- Unidirectional from the server : SSE
- Bidirectional : Websockets
Personally, I think that websockets will be used more and more in web applications instead of AJAX. They are not well suited to web sites where caching and SEO are of greater concern, but they will do wonders for webapps.
Projects such as DNode and socketstream help to remove the complexity and enable simple RPC-style coding. This means your client code just calls a function on the server, passing whatever data to that function it wants. And the server can call a function on the client and pass it data as well. You don't need to concern yourself with the nitty gritties of TCP.
Furthermore, there is a lot of overhead with AJAX calls. For instance, a connection needs to be established and HTTP headers (cookies, etc.) are passed with every request. Websockets eliminate much of that. Some say that websockets are more wasteful, and perhaps they are right. But I'm not convinced that the difference is really that substantial.
I answered another related question in detail, including many links to related resources. You might check it out:
websocket api to replace rest api?
I think that sooner or later websocket based frameworks will start to popup not just for writing real-time chat like parts of web apps, but also as standalone web frameworks. Once permanent connection is created it can be used for receiving all kinds of stuff including UI parts of web application which are now served for example through AJAX requests. This approach may hurt SEO in some way although it can reduce amount of traffic and load generated by asynchronous requests which includes redundant HTTP headers.
However I doubt that websockets will replace or endanger AJAX because there are numerous scenarios where permanent connections are unnecessary or unwanted. For example mashup applications which are using (one time) single purpose REST based services that doesn't need to be permanently connected with clients.
There's nothing "wrong" about it.
The only difference is mostly readability. The main advantage of Ajax is that it allows you fast development because most of the functionality is written for you.
There's a great advantage in not having to re-invent the wheel every time you want to open a socket.
WS:// connections have far less overhead than "AJAX" requests.
As other people said, keeping the connection open can be overkill in some scenarios where you don't need server to client notifications, or client to server request happens with low frecuency.
But another disadvantage is that websockets is a low level protocol, not offering additional features to TCP once the initial handshake is performed. So when implementing a request-response paradigm over websockets, you will probably miss features that HTTP (a very mature and extense protocol family) offers, like caching (client and shared caches), validation (conditional requests), safety and idempotence (with implications on how the agent behaves), range requests, content types, status codes, ...
That is, you reduce message sizes at a cost.
So my choice is AJAX for request-response, websockets for server pushing and high frequency low latency messaging
If you want the connection to server open and if continuous polling to the server will be there then go for sockets else you are good to go with ajax.
Simple Analogy :
Ajax asks questions(requests) to server and server gives answers(responses) to these questions. Now if you want to ask continuous questions then ajax wont work, it has a large overhead which will require resources at both the ends.
Will web sockets when used in all web browsers make ajax obsolete?
Cause if I could use web sockets to fetch data and update data in realtime, why would I need ajax? Even if I use ajax to just fetch data once when the application started I still might want to see if this data has changed after a while.
And will web sockets be possible in cross-domains or only to the same origin?
WebSockets will not make AJAX entirely obsolete and WebSockets can do cross-domain.
AJAX
AJAX mechanisms can be used with plain web servers. At its most basic level, AJAX is just a way for a web page to make an HTTP request. WebSockets is a much lower level protocol and requires a WebSockets server (either built into the webserver, standalone, or proxied from the webserver to a standalone server).
With WebSockets, the framing and payload is determined by the application. You could send HTML/XML/JSON back and forth between client and server, but you aren't forced to. AJAX is HTTP. WebSockets has a HTTP friendly handshake, but WebSockets is not HTTP. WebSockets is a bi-directional protocol that is closer to raw sockets (intentionally so) than it is to HTTP. The WebSockets payload data is UTF-8 encoded in the current version of the standard but this is likely to be changed/extended in future versions.
So there will probably always be a place for AJAX type requests even in a world where all clients support WebSockets natively. WebSockets is trying to solve situations where AJAX is not capable or marginally capable (because WebSockets its bi-directional and much lower overhead). But WebSockets does not replace everything AJAX is used for.
Cross-Domain
Yes, WebSockets supports cross-domain. The initial handshake to setup the connection communicates origin policy information. The wikipedia page shows an example of a typical handshake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSockets
I'll try to break this down into questions:
Will web sockets when used in all web browsers make ajax obsolete?
Absolutely not. WebSockets are raw socket connections to the server. This comes with it's own security concerns. AJAX calls are simply async. HTTP requests that can follow the same validation procedures as the rest of the pages.
Cause if I could use web sockets to fetch data and update data in realtime, why would I need ajax?
You would use AJAX for simpler more manageable tasks. Not everyone wants to have the overhead of securing a socket connection to simply allow async requests. That can be handled simply enough.
Even if I use ajax to just fetch data once when the application started I still might want to see if this data has changed after a while.
Sure, if that data is changing. You may not have the data changing or constantly refreshing. Again, this is code overhead that you have to account for.
And will web sockets be possible in cross-domains or only to the same origin?
You can have cross domain WebSockets but you have to code your WS server to accept them. You have access to the domain (host) header which you can then use to accept / deny requests. This can, however, be spoofed by something as simple as nc. In order to truly secure the connection you will need to authenticate the connection by other means.
Websockets have a couple of big downsides in terms of scalability that ajax avoids. Since ajax sends a request/response and closes the connection (..or shortly after) if someone stays on the web page it doesn't use server resources when idling. Websockets are meant to stream data back to the browser, and they tie up server resources to do so. Servers have a limit in how many simultaneous connections they can keep open at one time. Not to mention depending on your server side technology, they may tie up a thread to handle the socket. So websockets have more resource intensive requirements for both sides per connection. You could easily exhaust all of your threads servicing clients and then no new clients could come in if lots of users are just sitting on the page. This is where nodejs, vertx, netty can really help out, but even those have upper limits as well.
Also there is the issue of state of the underlying socket, and writing the code on both sides that carry on the stateful conversation which isn't something you have to do with ajax style because it's stateless. Websockets require you create a low level protocol which is solved for you with ajax. Things like heart beating, closing idle connections, reconnection on errors, etc are vitally important now. These are things you didn't have to solve when using AJAX because it was stateless. State is very important to the stability of your app and more importantly the health of your server. It's not trivial. Pre-HTTP we built a lot of stateful TCP protocols (FTP, telnet, SSH), and then HTTP happened. And no one did that stuff much anymore because even with its limitations HTTP was surprisingly easier and more robust. Websockets bring back the good and the bad of stateful protocols. You'll learn soon enough if you didn't get a dose of that last go around.
If you need streaming of realtime data this extra overhead is warranted because polling the server to get streamed data is worse, but if all you are doing is user interaction->request->response->update UI, then ajax is easier and will use less resources because once the response is sent the conversation is over and no additional server resources are used. So I think it's a tradeoff and the architect has to decide which tool fits their problem. AJAX has its place, and websockets have their place.
Update
So the architecture of your server is what matters when we are talking about threads. If you are using a traditionally multi-threaded server (or processes) where a each socket connection gets its own thread to respond to requests then websockets matter a lot to you. So for each connection we have a socket, and eventually the OS will fall over if you have too many of these, and the same goes for threads (more so for processes). Threads are heavier than sockets (in terms of resources) so we try and conserve how many threads we have running simultaneously. That means creating a thread pool which is just a fixed number of threads that is shared among all sockets. But once a socket is opened the thread is used for the entire conversation. The length of those conversations govern how quickly you can repurpose those threads for new sockets coming in. The length of your conversation governs how much you can scale. However if you are streaming this model doesn't work well for scaling. You have to break the thread/socket design.
HTTP's request/response model makes it very efficient in turning over threads for new sockets. If you are just going to use request/response use HTTP its already built and much easier than reimplementing something like that in websockets.
Since websockets don't have to be request/response as HTTP and can stream data if your server has a fixed number of threads in its thread pool and you have the same number of websockets tying up all of your threads with active conversations, you can't service new clients coming in! You've reached your maximum capacity. That's where protocol design is important too with websockets and threads. Your protocol might allow you to loosen the thread per socket per conversation model that way people just sitting there don't use a thread on your server.
That's where asynchronous single thread servers come in. In Java we often call this NIO for non-blocking IO. That means it's a different API for sockets where sending and receiving data doesn't block the thread performing the call.
So traditional in blocking sockets when you call socket.read() or socket.write() they wait until the data is received or sent before returning control to your program. That means your program is stuck waiting for the socket data to come in or go out until you can do anything else. That's why we have threads so we can do work concurrently (at the same time). Send this data to client X while I wait on data from client Y. Concurrencies is the name of the game when we talk about servers.
In a NIO server we use a single thread to handle all clients and register callbacks to be notified when data arrives. For example
socket.read( function( data ) {
// data is here! Now you can process it very quickly without waiting!
});
The socket.read() call will return immediately without reading any data, but our function we provided will be called when it comes in. This design radically changes how you build and architect your code because if you get hung up waiting on something you can't receive any new clients. You have a single thread you can't really do two things at once! You have to keep that one thread moving.
NIO, Asynchronous IO, Event based program as this is all known as, is a much more complicated system design, and I wouldn't suggest you try and write this if you are starting out. Even very Senior programmers find it very hard to build a robust systems. Since you are asynchronous you can't call APIs that block. Like reading data from the DB or sending messages to other servers have to be performed asynchronously. Even reading/writing from the file system can slow your single thread down lowering your scalability. Once you go asynchronous it's all asynchronous all the time if you want to keep the single thread moving. That's where it gets challenging because eventually you'll run into an API, like DBs, that is not asynchronous and you have to adopt more threads at some level. So a hybrid approaches are common even in the asynchronous world.
The good news is there are other solutions that use this lower level API already built that you can use. NodeJS, Vertx, Netty, Apache Mina, Play Framework, Twisted Python, Stackless Python, etc. There might be some obscure library for C++, but honestly I wouldn't bother. Server technology doesn't require the very fastest languages because it's IO bound more than CPU bound. If you are a die hard performance nut use Java. It has a huge community of code to pull from and it's speed is very close (and sometimes better) than C++. If you just hate it go with Node or Python.
Yes, yes it does. :D
The earlier answers lack imagination. I see no more reason to use AJAX if websockets are available to you.