Use a StackOverflow Q&A thread as an example - when you vote up, vote down, or favorite a question, you can see the UI quickly respond to that action with changes in the # of up-votes on the side.
How can we achieve that effect? If send every of such action to back-end for processing and use the returned response to update UI, you will see a slow update and feel the glitches. But if put some of the logic on the front-end, you will also need to take care of the fraud/abuse etc before reflecting the action on UI, i.e - before changing the # of up-votes, don't you need to make sure that's a valid click by an valid user first?
You make sure that a valid user is using the app before a user clicks on anything. This is done through authentication, and it must include various protection mechanisms against malicious users.
When a user clicks, a call is made to a server. In a properly architected app this call is lightweight, and the server responds very quickly. I don't know why you believe that "you will see a slow update and feel the glitches". Adding an upvote to the database should take a few hundred milliseconds at most (including the roundtrip from the client), especially if the commit is asynchronous or a memcache is used.
If a database update results in a need to do some complex operations, typically these operations are not done right away. For example, a cron job may run periodically to compute new rankings, etc., precisely because you do not want every user to wait. Alternatively, a task is created and put in a task queue to be executed when resources are available - again to make sure that a user does not wait.
In some apps a UI is updated immediately after the call to the server is made, before any response from a server arrives. You can do it when the consequences of a failed call are negligible. For example, if an upvote fails to be saved in the database, it's not a disaster, especially if it happens once in a million tries. Again, in a properly architected app calls fail extremely rarely.
This is a decision that an app developer needs to make. I would not update a UI before a server response if such an update may lead a user to believe that some other action is now possible. For example, if a user uploads a new photo, I would not show icons to edit or share this photo until I know that the photo is safely saved.
Related
I am trying to implement different cache strategies using ServiceWorker. For the following strategies the way to implement is completely clear:
Cache first
Cache only
Network first
Network only
For example, while trying to implement the cache-first strategy, in the fetch hook of the service-worker I will first ask the CacheStorage (or any other) for the requested URL and then if exists respondWith it and if not respondWith the result of network request.
But for the stale-while-revalidate strategy according to this definition of the workbox, I have the following questions:
First about the mechanism itself. Does stale-while-revalidate mean that use cache until the network responses and then use the network data or just use the network response to renew your cache data for the next time?
Now if the network is cached for the next time, then what scenarios contain a real use-case of that?
And if the network response should be replaced immediately in the app, so how could it be done in a service worker? Because the hook will be resolved with the cached data and then network data could not be resolved (with respondWith).
Yes, it means exactly that. The idea is simple: respond immediately from the cache, then refresh the cache in the background for the next time.
All scenarios where it is not important to always get the very latest version of the page/app =) I'm using stale-while-revalidate strategy on two different web applications, one for public transportation services and one for displaying restaurant menu information. Many sites/apps are just fine with this but of course not all.
One very important thing to note here on the #2:
You could eg. use stale-while-revalidate only for static assets. This way your html, js, css, images etc. would be cached and quickly served to the user, but the data fetched dynamically from an API could still be fresh. For some apps this works, for some others not so well. Depends completely on the app. Of course you have to remember not to change the semantics of your API if the user is running a previous version of the app etc.
Not possible in any automatic way. What you could do, however, is implement a msg channel between the Service Worker and the "regular JS code on the page" using window.postMessage API. You could listen for certain messages on the page and then, from the Service Worker, send a msg when an important change has happened and the cache has been updated. Then you could either show the user a prompt telling that the page really needs to be reloaded right now or even force reload it from JS. You would need to put this logic of determining when an important update has happened into the Service Worker of course.
I am developing a social network in ASP.NET MVC 3. Every user has must have the ability to see connected people.
What is the best way to do this?
I added a flag in the table Contact in my database, and I set it to true when the user logs in and set it to false when he logs out.
But the problem with this solution is when the user closes the browser without logging out, he will still remain connected.
The only way to truly know that a user is currently connected is to maintain some sort of connection between the user and the server. Two options immediately come to mind:
Use javascript to periodically call your server using ajax. You would have a special endpoint on your server that would be used to update a "last connected time" status, and you would have a second endpoint for users to poll to see who is online.
Use a websocket to maintain a persistent connection with your server
Option 1 should be fairly easy to implement. The main thing to keep in mind that this will increase the amount of requests coming into your server, and you will have to plan accordingly in order handle the traffic this could generate. You will have some control over the amount of load on your server by configuring how often javascript timer calls back to your server.
Option 2 could be a little more involved if you did this without library support. Of course there are libraries out there such as SignalR that make this really easy to do. This also has an impact on the performance of your site since each user will be maintaining a persistent connection. The advantage with this approach is that it reduces the need for polling like option 1 does. If you use this approach it would also be very easy to push a message to user A that user B has gone offline.
I guess I should also mention a really easy 3rd option as well. If you feel like your site is pretty interactive, you could just track the last time they made a request to your site. This of course may not give you enough accuracy to determine whether a user is "connected".
Our site is divided into several smaller sites recently, which are then distributed in different IDCs.
One of these sites serves user authentication and other user-related services, the other sites access it through web services.
On every site that fetches data remotely, we make a local cache so that we don't have to go remote every time user information is needed.
What cache updating strategy would you recommend to ensure data integrity?
Since you need the updated-policy close to realtime, you definitely need the cache-invalidation notification engine.
There are 2 possible implementation models for it:
1.Pull
Main server pulls child-servers with notification messages like "resourceID=34392 not more valid in your cache".
This message should be sent on each data update on main server.
Poll
Each child-server ask main server about the cache item validity right before serving it to user.
Ofcourse, in this case, main server should keep the list of objects updated during last cache-lifetime period, and respond to "If-object-was-updated" requests very quickly.
As you see in both cases, your main server should trigger an event on each data change.
In first case this event will be transferred via 'notification bus' to child server, and in second case this event will be stored in recently-updated-objects list.
So both options need some code changes on main server.
As for me the second options is much more easy to implement in common, but it`s very depends of the software stack you're using.
A web application I am developing needs to perform tasks that are too long to be executed during the http request/response cycle. Typically, the user will perform the request, the server will take this request and, among other things, run some scripts to generate data (for example, render images with povray).
Of course, these tasks can take a long time, so the server should not hang for the scripts to complete execution before sending the response to the client. I therefore need to perform the execution of the scripts async, and give the client a "the resource is here, but not ready" and probably tell it a ajax endpoint to poll, so it can retrieve and display the resource when ready.
Now, my question is not relative to the design (although I would very much enjoy any hints on this regard as well). My question is: does a system to solve this issue already exists, so I do not reinvent the square wheel ? If I had to, I would use a process queue manager to submit the task and put a HTTP endpoint to shoot out the status, something like "pending", "aborted", "completed" to the ajax client, but if something similar already exists specifically for this task, I would mostly enjoy it.
I am working in python+django.
Edit: Please note that the main issue here is not how the server and the client must negotiate and exchange information about the status of the task.
The issue is how the server handles the submission and enqueue of very long tasks. In other words, I need a better system than having my server submit scripts on LSF. Not that it would not work, but I think it's a bit too much...
Edit 2: I added a bounty to see if I can get some other answer. I checked pyprocessing, but I cannot perform submission of a job and reconnect to the queue at a later stage.
You should avoid re-inventing the wheel here.
Check out gearman. It has libraries in a lot of languages (including python) and is fairly popular. Not sure if anyone has any out of the box ways to easily connect up django to gearman and ajax calls, but it shouldn't be do complicated to do that part yourself.
The basic idea is that you run the gearman job server (or multiple job servers), have your web request queue up a job (like 'resize_photo') with some arguments (like '{photo_id: 1234}'). You queue this as a background task. You get a handle back. Your ajax request is then going to poll on that handle value until it's marked as complete.
Then you have a worker (or probably many) that is a separate python process connect up to this job server and registers itself for 'resize_photo' jobs, does the work and then marks it as complete.
I also found this blog post that does a pretty good job summarizing it's usage.
You can try two approachs:
To call webserver every n interval and inform a job id; server processes and return some information about current execution of that task
To implement a long running page, sending data every n interval; for client, that HTTP request will "always" be "loading" and it needs to collect new information every time a new data piece is received.
About second option, you can to learn more by reading about Comet; Using ASP.NET, you can do something similiar by implementing System.Web.IHttpAsyncHandler interface.
I don't know of a system that does it, but it would be fairly easy to implement one's own system:
create a database table with jobid, jobparameters, jobresult
jobresult is a string that will hold a pickle of the result
jobparameters is a pickled list of input arguments
when the server starts working on a job, it creates a new row in the table, and spwans a new process to handle that, passing that process the jobid
the task handler process updates the jobresult in the table when it has finished
a webpage (xmlrpc or whatever you are using) contains a method 'getResult(jobid)' that will check the table for a jobresult
if it finds a result, it returns the result, and deletes the row from the table
otherwise it returns an empty list, or None, or your preferred return value to signal that the job is not finished yet
There are a few edge-cases to take care of so an existing framework would clearly be better as you say.
At first You need some separate "worker" service, which will be started separately at powerup and communicated with http-request handlers via some local IPC like UNIX-socket(fast) or database(simple).
During handling request cgi ask from worker state or other data and replay to client.
You can signal that a resource is being "worked on" by replying with a 202 HTTP code: the Client side will have to retry later to get the completed resource. Depending on the case, you might have to issue a "request id" in order to match a request with a response.
Alternatively, you could have a look at existing COMET libraries which might fill your needs more "out of the box". I am not sure if there are any that match your current Django design though.
Probably not a great answer for the python/django solution you are working with, but we use Microsoft Message Queue for things just like this. It basically runs like this
Website updates a database row somewhere with a "Processing" status
Website sends a message to the MSMQ (this is a non blocking call so it returns control back to the website right away)
Windows service (could be any program really) is "watching" the MSMQ and gets the message
Windows service updates the database row with a "Finished" status.
That's the gist of it anyways. It's been quite reliable for us and really straight forward to scale and manage.
-al
Another good option for python and django is Celery.
And if you think that Celery is too heavy for your needs then you might want to look at simple distributed taskqueue.
I have noticed that some of my ajax-heavy sites (ones I visit, not ones I have built), have certain auto-refresh features. For example, in GMail, if I get a new message, I see the new message without a page reload. It's the same with the Facebook browser-based IM client. From what I can tell, there aren't any java applets handling the server-browser binding, so I'm left to assume it's being done by AJAX and perhaps some element I'm unaware of. So by my best guess, it's done in one of two ways:
The javascript does a steady "ping" to a server-side script, checking for any updates that might be available (which would explain why some of these pages bring any other heavy-duty pages to a crawl). or
The javascript sits idly by and a server-side script actually "Pushes" any updates to the browser. But I'm not sure if this is possible. I'd imagine there is some kind of AJAX function that still pings, but all it simply asks "any updates?" and the server-script has a simple boolean that says "nope" or "I'm glad you asked." But if this is the case, any data changes would need to call the script directly so that it has the data changes ready and makes the change to that boolean function.
So is that possible/feasible/how it works? I imagine something like:
Someone sends an email/IM/DB update to the server, the server calls the script using the script's URL plus some relevant GET variable, the script notes the change and updates the "updates available" variable, the AJAX gets the response that there are in fact updates, the AJAX runs its normal "update page" functions, which executes the normal update scripts and outputs them to the browser.
I ask because it seems really inefficient that the js is just doing a constant check which requires a) the server to do work every 1.5 seconds, and b) my browser to do work every 1.5 seconds just so that on my end I can say "Oh boy, I got an IM! just like a real IM client!"
Read about Comet
I've actually been working on a small .NET Web App that uses the Ajax with long polling technique described.
Depending on what technology you're using, you could use thread signaling mechanisms to hold your request until an update is retrieved.
With ASP.NET I'm running my server on a single machine, so I store a reference to my Producer object (which contains a thread that processes the data). To initiate the data pull, my service's Subscribe method is called, which creates a Consumer object that's registered with the Producer. If the Consumer is long polling mode, it has a AutoResetEvent which is signaled whenever it receives new data, and whenever the web client makes a request for data, the Consumer first waits on the reset event, and then returns it.
But you're mentioning something about PHP - as far as I know persistence is maintained through serialization, not actually keeping the object in memory, so I don't know how you could reference a Producer object using $_CACHE[] or $_SESSION[]. When I developed in PHP I never really knew anything about multithreading so I didn't play around with it, but I guess you can look into that.
Using infinite loops is going to consume a lot of your processing power - I would exhaust all other options first.