I am writing mirrorlink-server data services(CDB/SBP) module.
However, all the common APIs of Data Services (8 manager and 5 listener) seem to be useful only when server is in sink mode.
When I will get a GET, SET or SUBSCRIBE command from client, which common API is to be used to notify the server application about the request so that application can fill the object and response can be sent back to the client?
Otherwise, what data will server send as response if it can't notify to the server application?
The phone (server) can be data source for the head unit (client) but support is optional for both the phone and the head unit. There aren't many phones or head units that support it at this time.
The Common API does not (currently) define how to provide a data object as a source. This will be defined in a future revision as an additional service module.
Related
I need to add support for instant messages or reminders to my web application. I was reading that this could be accomplished with websockets.
The idea is that during the time the web app is been used, it could receive messages originated (not as a request response) from the server. For example, the server application might want to remind the user about and unpaid service.
As I understand, when the web app starts it connects to the websocket server through a standard HTTP Request call to announce itself as a client. My question is:
"If I have hundreds of clients connected at the same time, how do I call one in particular?"
Do I need to store every websocket object in an array or something so I can use it to send a message when it is required?
What would be the right approach?
Thanks.
I am working on a project which is basically a Customer Feedback Analysis Dashboard. There are few graphs on the dashboard and data for each graph is fetched from the server through API requests.
Right now the dashboard is updated every time the page is refreshed. I want it to be updated immediately when there is a new feedback in the system. I am confused, whether I use websockets to send data for each graph or just a flag and use that flag to fetch data through API requests.
Like, facebook/twitter does. They tell you about new posts/tweets and when you click that button your feed/wall gets updated.
If you want to "push" data from server to client and you want that data to show up in a timely fashion (e.g. within 10-20 seconds of when it was available on the server), then you will want to implement some sort of "push" solution where the server can efficiently push data to the client whenever there is new data to send.
There are several possible approaches:
webSockets
socket.io
Server-sent events
Mobile platform-specific push (Android and iOS)
For a general purpose solution that works within a browser, you will want to use one of the first three. socket.io is built on top of webSockets (it just adds more features) so architecturally, they are similar.
Server-sent events are fairly new (modern browsers only) and are only for one way communication (from server to client). webSockets can be used for communication either way.
I'd personally recommend socket.io because of the features it offers (such as automatic client reconnection) and a simplified messaging layer. You can see the feature difference between socket.io and webSockets here. With socket.io, the client makes a connection to the server when the web page is loaded and that connection is persistent. After the connection is established, then either client or server can send messages to the other at any time in a very efficient manner.
Other useful references:
Push notification | is websocket mandatory?
websocket vs rest API for real time data?
Why to use websocket and what is the advantage of using it?
What are the pitfalls of using Websockets in place of RESTful HTTP?
Ajax vs Socket.io
Firstly, here is state of my application:
I have a request coming in from a client (angularjs app) into my API (web api 2). This request is processed and a record is stored in a database. A response is then sent back to the client.
Currently, I have a windows service polling and processing this record(s).
Processing this record can be long running. As a side effect to processing this record, there might be notifications generated to be sent back to one or more clients.
My question is how do I architect this, such that I can utilise SignalR to be able to push the notifications back to the client.
My stumbling block:
I can register and store (in-memory backed by a db) the client's SignalR connectionid along with the application's own user identifier. This way I can match a generated notification with a signalr client.
At the moment, I'm hosting the SignalR hubs within the IIS process. So how do I get back from the Windows Service to IIS to notify the client when a notification is generated?
Furthermore, I should say I am already using SignalR elsewhere in the application and am using a SQL Server backplane.
The issue's with the current architecture:
Any processing is done in the same web request, and notifications are sent out via SignalR before a response to the client is returned. Luckily, the processing is minimal and very quick.
I think this is not very good in terms of performance or maintenance in the long run.
Potential solutions:
Remove SignalR hubs from IIS and host them somewhere else - windows service?
Expose an endpoint on the API to for the windows service to call to push the notification once a notification is generated?
Finally, to add more ingredients to the mix: Use a service bus to remove the polling component of the windows service, and move to a pub/sub architecture. Although this is more work than I want to chew off right now.
Any ideas/recommendations/constructive criticisms are welcome.
Thanks.
Take a look at this sample for starters
Another more advanced solution can be using a backplane to manage the communications between the front end and the backend...
HTH
I have an API running on a server, which handle users connection and a messaging system.
Beside that, I launched a websocket on that same server, waiting for connections and stuff.
And let's say we can get access to this by an Android app.
I'm having troubles to figure out what I should do now, here are my thoughts:
1 - When a user connect to the app, the API connect to the websocket. We allow the Android app only to listen on this socket to get new messages. When the user want to answer, the Android app send a message to the API. The API writes itself the received message to the socket, which will be read back by the Android app used by another user.
This way, the API can store the message in database before writing it in the socket.
2- The API does not connect to the websocket in any way. The Android app listen and write to the websocket when needed, and should, when writing to the websocket, also send a request to the API so it can store the message in DB.
May be none of the above is correct, please let me know
EDIT
I already understood why I should use a websocket, seems like it's the best way to have this "real time" system (when getting a new message for example) instead of forcing the client to make an HTTP request every x seconds to check if there are new messages.
What I still don't understand, is how it is suppose to communicate with my database. Sorry if my example is not clear, but I'll try to keep going with it :
My messaging system need to store all messages in my API database, to have some kind of historic of the conversation.
But it seems like a websocket must be running separately from the API, I mean it's another program right? Because it's not for HTTP requests
So should the API also listen to this websocket to catch new messages and store them?
You really have not described what the requirements are for your application so it's hard for us to directly advise what your app should do. You really shouldn't start out your analysis by saying that you have a webSocket and you're trying to figure out what to do with it. Instead, lay out the requirements of your app and figure out what technology will best meet those requirements.
Since your requirements are not clear, I'll talk about what a webSocket is best used for and what more traditional http requests are best used for.
Here are some characteristics of a webSocket:
It's designed to be continuously connected over some longer duration of time (much longer than the duration of one exchange between client and server).
The connection is typically made from a client to a server.
Once the connection is established, then data can be sent in either direction from client to server or from server to client at any time. This is a huge difference from a typical http request where data can only be requested by the client - with an http request the server can not initiate the sending of data to the client.
A webSocket is not a request/response architecture by default. In fact to make it work like request/response requires building a layer on top of the webSocket protocol so you can tell which response goes with which request. http is natively request/response.
Because a webSocket is designed to be continuously connected (or at least connected for some duration of time), it works very well (and with lower overhead) for situations where there is frequent communication between the two endpoints. The connection is already established and data can just be sent without any connection establishment overhead. In addition, the overhead per message is typically smaller with a webSocket than with http.
So, here are a couple typical reasons why you might choose one over the other.
If you need to be able to send data from server to client without having the client regular poll for new data, then a webSocket is very well designed for that and http cannot do that.
If you are frequently sending lots of small bits of data (for example, a temperature probe sending the current temperature every 10 seconds), then a webSocket will incur less network and server overhead than initiating a new http request for every new piece of data.
If you don't have either of the above situations, then you may not have any real need for a webSocket and an http request/response model may just be simpler.
If you really need request/response where a specific response is tied to a specific request, then that is built into http and is not a built-in feature of webSockets.
You may also find these other posts useful:
What are the pitfalls of using Websockets in place of RESTful HTTP?
What's the difference between WebSocket and plain socket communication?
Push notification | is websocket mandatory?
How does WebSockets server architecture work?
Response to Your Edit
But it seems like a websocket must be running separately from the API,
I mean it's another program right? Because it's not for HTTP requests
The same process that supports your API can also be serving the webSocket connections. Thus, when you get incoming data on the webSocket, you can just write it directly to the database the same way the API would access the database. So, NO the webSocket server does not have to be a separate program or process.
So should the API also listen to this websocket to catch new messages
and store them?
No, I don't think so. Only one process can be listening to a set of incoming webSocket connections.
I have a Java application which I make available via RESTful web services. I want to create a mechanism so clients can register for notifications of events. The rub is that there is no guarantee that the client programs will be Java programs and hence I won't be able to use JMS for this (i.e. if every client was a Java app then we could allow the clients to subscribe to a JMS topic and listen there for notification messages).
The use case is roughly as follows:
A client registers itself with my server application, via a RESTful web service call, indicating that it is interested in getting a notification message anytime a specific object is updated.
When the object of interest is updated then my server application needs to put out a notification to all clients who are interested in being notified of this event.
As I mentioned above I know how I would do this if all clients were Java apps -- set up a topic that clients can listen to for notification messages. However I can't use that approach since it's likely that many clients will not be able to listen to a JMS topic for notification messages.
Can anyone here enlighten me as to how this problem is typically solved? What mechanism can I provide using a RESTful API?
I can think of four approaches:
A Twitter approach: You register the Client and then it calls back periodically with a GET to retrieve any notifications.
The Client describes how it wants to receive the notification when it makes the registration request. That way you could allow JMS for those that can handle it and fall back to email or similar for those that can't.
Take a URL during the registration request and POST back to each Client individually when you have a notification. Hardly Pub/Sub but the effect would be similar. Of course you'd be assuming that the Client was listening for these notifications and had implemented their Client according to your specs.
Buy IBM WebSphere MQ (MQSeries). Best IBM product ever. Not REST but it's great at multi-platform integration like this.
We have this problem and need low-latency asynchronous updates to relatively few listeners. Our two alternative solutions have been:
Polling: Hammer the list of resources you need with GET requests
Streaming event updates: Provide a monitor resource. The server keeps the connection open. As events occur, the server transmits a stream of event descriptions using multipart content-type or chunked transfer-encoding.
In the response to the RESTful request, you could supply an individualized RESTful URL that the client can monitor for updates.
That is, you have one URL (/Signup.htm, say), that accepts the client's information (id if appropriate, id of object to monitor) and returns a customized url (/Monitor/XYZPDQ), where XYZPDQ is a UUID created for that particular client. The client can poll that customized URL at some interval, and it will receive a notification if the update occurs.
If you don't care about who the client is (and don't want to create so many UUIDs) you could just have separate RESTful URLs for each object that might want to be monitored, and the "signup" URL would just return the correct one.
As John Saunders says, you can't really do a more straightforward publish/subscribe via HTTP.
If polling is not acceptable I would consider using web-sockets (e.g. see here). Though to be honest I like the idea suggested by user189423 of multipart content-type or chunked transfer-encoding as well.