I'm looking to prototype a web app that will use sockets to push a gentle stream of messages to mobile web app clients. I want to pick an architecture that will work for a large number of clients if/when it moves to production (so i dont have to change later)
I'd like to start with rails because its familiar and has a strong structure from the go meaning easier to prototype. I think Faye will provide what i need in terms of a pub-sub layer but am I going to create a bottleneck by using ruby and the high number of socket connections, or will Faye isolate/protect Ruby server from that load, if you follow?
At the outset the load will not be significant so it won't matter, i just don't want to be hobbled later on when there are a lot of socket connections and i wish i used node.js ! Server side JS would be fairly new to me but I guess there are benefits in that the JS app can include the client side also
Advice appreciated.
You can take a look at https://github.com/faye/faye-redis-node.
This plugin provides a Redis-based backend for the Faye messaging server. It allows a single Faye service to be distributed across many front-end web servers by storing state and routing messages through a Redis database server
Related
I've been reading about websockets and SaaS like Pusher and Socket.io recently, while working on my Laravel chat practice application. What I don't understand is, why do we need external software to establish a websocket connection? Can't the server code like Laravel just directly establish the connection with the front-end like Vue.js? Why does it have to go through the middleman like Pusher and Socket.io? Sorry for the noob question.
It doesn't have to.
Those pieces of software just happen to make it trivial to work with the Websocket protocol.
Remember, Laravel is an opinionated framework. This means that it will pick and choose its own libraries to abstract away these kinds of concepts for you so that you don't have to worry so much about what's going on under the hood.
Basically, there are two components that you need in order to be able to work with Websockets:
A Websocket Server
A Websocket Client
The reason Laravel doesn't communicate directly with the front-end using Websockets is because Laravel itself isn't a Websocket server. At least, not really. And while PHP does have support for working with the Websocket protocol - and even some libraries to leverage it a little more nicely - it just isn't used to handle long-lived processes as often as other languages.
Instead, Laravel uses the Pub/Sub functionality that Redis provides to listen to events that occur through Redis and the Predis library. The reason why it does this is because Laravel is better-suited as a middle-man for the websocket server, and all connected clients.
In this way, Laravel can both pass information up through to the Websocket server using Broadcasting Events, as well as receive event information from the Websocket server and determine if users have the ability or authorization to receive them.
If you don't want to use Pusher, there is a library that will allow you to run your own Websocket Server specifically for Laravel called Laravel Echo Server.
Under the hood, this library still uses Socket.io and Redis in order for all moving parts to communicate with each other seamlessly in a Laravel web application. The benefit here is that you won't need to worry about the number of messages being sent by the server.
The downside is that you now have to know how to manage and maintain this process on your server so that the Websocket Server will know to turn on every time you restart your server, or if a failure happens, etc.
Check out PM2 to learn more about running and maintaining server daemons.
If you don't agree with Laravel's opinions on how to handle Websockets, then you could theoretically use any other server-side language to handle the websocket protocol. It will just require a greater working knowledge of the protocol itself; and if Laravel needs to work with it, you'll have to know how to write the appropriate Service and Provider classes to be able to handle it.
Short answer? You don't have to use them. Knock yourself out writing your own server and client side websocket implementation.
Longer answer.
Why use Laravel? I can do all that with straight up PHP.
Why use Vue? I can do all that with vanilla javascript.
We use libraries and frameworks because they abstract away the details of implementation and make it easier to build products. They handle edge cases you don't think of or things you don't even know that you don't know about because they are used by thousands or millions of developers and all the knowledge and bugs they have encountered and fixed are baked into the implementation.
This is one of the hallmarks of software engineering, code reuse. Don't repeat yourself and don't write any software you don't have to. It allows you to focus on building a solution for your particular requirements, and not focus on building a bunch of infrastructure before you can even build your solution.
I've never used Pusher, but it looks like, yes, it is a SaaS product. But Socket.io is open source.
In the web2py examples there is a websocket example which uses tornado here:
gluon/contrib/websocket_messaging.py and this requires another server to be started namely tornado. My questions is, do I need another server? Should I only have one server to handle both the websocket stuff and the normal http requests?
Also, it seems tornado is the server of choice for the 2nd server, could that be something different?
I'm a bit of a newbie to websockets (and webapp development) so any comments/links that would help me better understand this would be appreciated.
Python WSGI based frameworks such as web2py are typically served via threaded web servers. A typical HTTP request occupies one of the server threads only very briefly in order to receive the incoming request and deliver the response, then freeing the thread to serve another incoming request.
Websockets (and long polling), on the other hand, require a long-lived connection between the client (i.e., browser) and the web server. A websocket connection will therefore occupy a thread indefinitely, so you can only have as many connections as you have threads, thus limiting the application to a relatively small number of concurrent users.
In order to enable many simultaneous websocket connections, it is therefore best to serve websockets via a server that features non-blocking network I/O, such as Tornado. For more details, see http://www.tornadoweb.org/en/stable/guide/async.html.
Another option is to use Gevent with monkey patching, which can be used in the context of a WSGI application as described here. Keep in mind, though, that any libraries you use that involve network I/O (such as database drivers) must be compatible with this approach (either via monkey patching or code explicitly designed for coroutines).
If realtime/server-push functionality is a major aspect of your application, and especially if you are new to web development, you might instead consider a framework built for this specific use case, such as Meteor.
Some pieces of middleware support websockets natively e.g. HiveMQ: http://www.hivemq.com/mqtt-over-websockets-with-hivemq/. What advantages are conferred to a developer using the websockets API as a first class client to the middleware, rather than routing requests through an intermediary server that supports language specific APIs e.g.
Client -> Middleware
vs
Client -> Server -> Middleware
For example, we could argue that skipping an intermediary server will reduce bandwidth costs, not require a developer to write an extra layer, native SSL websockets support?
What other advantages might be provided to not just a developer, but any party through providing websockets support for middleware?
The main advantage you get is simplicity and in case of HiveMQ, scalability.
Let me explain these advantages:
Simplicity
In case of HiveMQ, you just start the server and you are good to go. All web applications which use a MQTT library over websockets can connect to the server without even knowing that websockets as transport is used. For HiveMQ itself, it's just another MQTT client. So it doesn't matter if the clients are connected via websockets or via a classic TCP connection. I think you already mentioned the other arguments in your question. And of course last but not least the operations guys will thank you if they have one system (in your case the "Server") less to maintain.
Scalability
Software like HiveMQ is very scalable and it can handle up to hundreds of thousands of concurrent connected clients. The chance is high, that the additional layer ("Server" in your case) could introduce a bottleneck. Also, things like load balancing with a HW or SW load balancer gets a lot easier if you can throw out unneeded layers. In general, your architecture of your system will get a lot of easier if you don't need these additional layers (which are not services which can be reused for other applications, like microservices are).
Last but not least it's worth noting, that HiveMQ itself is often integrated with classic middleware / ESBs. That means, people write custom plugins for integrating HiveMQ to their existing middleware. JMS or webservice calls (REST, SOAP) are often used for doing that.
Take that answer with a grain of salt, since I'm involved developing HiveMQ :-)
I'm just learning Websharper but, in the short term, I have a business problem that I am trying to solve. I've written a server and WPF-based client that allows the user to vary inputs using controls like sliders and obtain feedback from the server in real-time (i.e. there is no "submit" button).
I'd like to convert this desktop GUI app into a web app using Websharper. How might I do the background request-response to the server triggered by the user sliding and slider and resulting in feedback visualized asynchronously in the web page?
I imagine the most obvious way is to simply make a bunch of [<Rpc>]-decorated methods for your server-side logic and then simply invoke them on any change in the UI. IIRC, Websharper handles the client-server transition transparently, i.e. if you call a server method, the necessary proxy will fire to get you the results.
As has been pointed out you may rely on RPC methods, but this might give unacceptable latency.
At IntelliFactory we are now working on a project that required asynchronous bi-directional and low-latency communication between the server and the client. We ended up using the WebSocket protocol. We are planning to document and release the code into a reusable library soon for people with similar requirements.
The prime advantage of the WebSocket protocol for our purpose was that it allowed to maintain state on the server side of the connection. Our server is a worker role running in Windows Azure. The server is selected randomly by the Azure load balancer when the WebSocket connection is established, and the client talks to the same server while the connection is open. This allows maintaining expensive to initialize per-connection state on the server.
The disadvantage of the WebSocket protocol is lack of support by older browsers. A portable low-latency alternative is SignalR that uses some form of HTTP polling to emulate the functionality on older browsers. Unfortunately we have so far failed to adapt SignalR to our requirements on Azure. It should theoretically be possible but since AFAIK SignalR follows a mostly stateless design this would require coding up a router to redirect messages and "undo" the effects of Azure load balancer.
I don't know integration points of WebSharper, but Rx has many nice concepts and functions for functional and reactive event processing like throttling (needs for slider and async network calls).
https://github.com/Reactive-Extensions/RxJS
https://github.com/panesofglass/FSharp.Reactive
Socket.IO seems to be the most popular and active WebSocket emulation library. Juggernaut uses it to create a complete pub/sub system.
Faye is also popular and active, and has its own javascript library, making its complete functionality comparable to Juggernaut. Juggernaut uses node for its server, and Faye can use either node or rack. Juggernaut uses Redis for persistence (correction: it uses Redis for pub/sub), and Faye only keeps state in memory.
Is everything above accurate?
Faye says it implements Bayeux -- i think Juggernaut does not do this -- is that because Juggernaut is lower level (IE, I can implement Bayeux using Juggernaut)
Could Faye switch to using the Socket.IO browser javascript library if it wanted to? Or do their javascript libraries do fundamentally different things?
Are there any other architectural/design/philosophy differences between the projects?
Disclosure: I am the author of Faye.
Regarding Faye, everything you've said is true.
Faye implements most of Bayeux, the only thing missing right now is service channels, which I've yet to be convinced of the usefulness of. In particular Faye is designed to be compatible with the CometD reference implementation of Bayeux, which has a large bearing on the following.
Conceptually, yes: Faye could use Socket.IO. In practise, there are some barriers to this:
I've no idea what kind of server-side support Socket.IO requires, and the requirement that the Faye client (there are server-side clients in Node and Ruby, remember) be able to talk to any Bayeux server (and the Faye server to any Bayeux client) may be deal-breaker.
Bayeux has specific requirements that servers and clients support certain transport types, and says how to negotiate which one to use. It also specifies how they are used, for example how the Content-Type of an XHR request affects how its content is interpreted.
For some types of error handling I need direct access to the transport, for example resending messages when a client reconnects after a Node WebSocket dies.
Please correct me if I've got any of this wrong - this is based on a cursory scan of the Socket.IO documentation.
Faye is just pub/sub, it's just based on a slightly more complex protocol and has a lot of niceties built in:
Server- and client-side extensions
Wildcard pattern-matching on channel routes
Automatic reconnection, e.g. when WebSockets die or the server goes offline
The client works in all browsers, on phones, and server-side on Node and Ruby
Faye probably looks a lot more complex compared to Juggernaut because Juggernaut delegates more, e.g. it delegates transport negotiation to Socket.IO and message routing to Redis. These are both fine decisions, but my decision to use Bayeux means I have to do more work myself.
As for design philosophy, Faye's overriding goal is that it should work everywhere the Web is available and should be absolutely trivial to get going with. I'ts really simple to get started with but its extensibility means it can be customized in quite powerful ways, for example you can turn it into a server-to-client push service (i.e. stop arbitrary clients pushing to it) by adding authentication extensions.
There is also work underway to make it more flexible on the server side. I'm looking at adding clustering support, and making the core pub-sub engine pluggable so you could use Faye as a stateless web frontend for another pub-sub system like Redis or AMQP.
I hope this has been helpful.
AFAIK, yes, apart from the fact Juggernaut only uses Redis for Pubsub, not persistence. Also means client libraries in most languages have already been written (since it just needs a Redis adapter).
Juggernaut doesn't implement Bayeux, but rather has a very simple custom JSON protocol
I don't know, but probably
Juggernaut is very simple, and designed to be that way. Although I haven't used Faye, from the docs it looks like it has a lot more features than just PubSub. Being built on top of Socket.IO has it advantages too, Juggernaut's supported in practically every browser, both desktop and mobile.
I'll be really interested in what Faye's author has to say. As I say, I haven't used it and it would be great to know how it compares to Juggernaut. It's probably the case of using the best tool for the job. If it's pubsub you need, Juggernaut does that very well.
Faye certainly could.
Another example of a similar project on top of Socket.IO:
https://github.com/aaronblohowiak/Push-It