I'm doing a pet project with Symfony. In it, I scrape and parse the content of a few websites and APIs (it's all for personal use), and mix everything together. Up until now, I've been separating all the different retrieval processes, and basically it works like this: I have a menu, and each button updates something. When I push it, some website is loaded, the content is parsed and my database is updated. This takes some time, depending on the website loading time, the parsing etc. Basically, when I choose to update something, I lose control and I have no output about the situation until everything is done.
I'm rethinking the whole process, and the way I see this is having a page where I push a button, and a "permanent" connection is established with the server. Then, one thing a time, everything is updated. This could take some time (I would guess even 20 minutes), and therefore the server notifies the client with updates, and possibly even requires the user to make choices (I'm connecting data from different sources, and there are a few edge cases where it just can't automatically guess the right relationships).
I'm thinking about the best way to implement this. At first I thought simple Ajax/jQuery would work, but it seems to me that the relationship between client/server is too permanent and bidirectional to be able to keep everything simple. Then I thought about working with streams and/or websockets, but I don't really know the topics.
What is the best/correct way to do this, especially in a Symfony context?
I don't think this is really tight to Symfony, what you are looking for is called Server Sent Events.
Server-sent events (SSE) is a technology for a browser to get
automatic updates from a server via HTTP connection. The Server-Sent
Events EventSource API is standardized as part of HTML5 by the W3C.
For PHP in general, I generally use the Hoa\EventSource library which makes things easy
For Symfony, you can have a dedicated API endpoint that will use this library.
We are going to develop rest server for our application (and all logic is on client javascript).
So we thought to use Phalcon php, but we also need to create realtime chat system, which is much more easy to do using node.js. This made us think about using node.js instead of phalcon
Unfortunatly, we are not good expirienced in node.js, we love phalcon for its performance and internal beauty.
The quiestion is, did anybody compare phalcon and node.js performance? May be it's better to use node.js only for long polling chat requests, but i dont like when project is connected with so different tools.
You are trying to compare two different things IMO.
node.js has a lot of power and flexibility but so does Phalcon. If you want to create a chat application with Phalcon, then you will need to implement some sort of polling mechanism in your browser that would refresh the chat window every X seconds. Getting/Inserting the data from the database will be Phalcon's job. Javascript will be used to do the polling i.e. refresh the chat page every X seconds.
The problem with this approach is that you might be hitting your web server every X seconds from every client that has the chat application open - and thus refreshing the chat contents, even when there are no messages. This can become very intensive very quickly.
node.js has the ability to send messages to the subscribed clients instantly. Web sockets can do the same thing I believe.
Check this video out, which will give you an idea of how this can be achieved easily:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW1vsKMUaKg
The idea is to use technologies that will not burden your hardware, rather collaborate with it. Having a "subscription" notification system (such as sockets or node.js) reduces the load on your application since only the subscribed clients receive the new messages and no full refresh is needed from the chat clients.
Phalcon is great for the back end with its speed and it can be used to construct the message which in turn will be passed to the transport layer and sent to the client. Depending on how you want to implement this, there are plenty of options around and you can easily mix and match technologies :)
as #Nikolaos Dimopoulos said, you're trying to compare two different things.
But here is my advice, while you're experienced with PhalconPHP framework, and you want to benefit from Phalcon speed and performance, you can implement the web app in Phalcon FW, and the chatting system in Node.JS as a service.
If your web application "The Phalcon app" needs to push messages from the backend, you can use http://elephant.io/ library for that, I have done this before with Yii framework and Node, and it's working perfectly.
My advice is to use what you already know, experimenting with nodejs just for the chat application.
Mainly because you said you do not have experience with it, so, because the chat app is something a lot of people made you'll find plenty of examples.
By doing so you will learn a lot from node and might even think about migrating from Phalcon if it suits your needs, using the features offered by expressjs for example.
I would not choose one over the other based on performance.
I'm having a play around with websockets and I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around some stuff. Specifically, being able to send a whole bunch of subscribers different data without using a stupid amount of resources.
For example, if you had some sort of twitter like service, how would you send all followers of a person a newly posted tweet that they have made (and do the same for the other hundreds of people doing the same). It just seems that handling that many separate people is a bit absurd.
Can someone talk me through how you would go about treating each client individually? Please tell me if I have the whole idea of websockets wrong.
Thanks in advance!
P.S. for reference, I'm probably going to play around using either node or clojure (with aleph)
Use an established messaging protocol and broker on top of websockets.
It seems you are looking at websockets at the application layer when it is more of a network protocol. A variety of messaging APIs exists (such as JMS) with open source message brokers that are designed to do the complex and scalable message routing.
I thought about getting rid of all client-side Ajax calls (jQuery) and instead use a permanent socket connection (Socket.IO).
Therefore I would use event listeners/emitters client-side and server-side.
Ex. a click event is triggered by user in the browser, client-side emitter pushes the event through socket connection to server. Server-side listener reacts on incoming event, and pushes "done" event back to client. Client's listener reacts on incoming event by fading in DIV element.
Does that make sense at all?
Pros & cons?
There is a lot of common misinformation in this thread that is very inaccurate.
TL/DR;
WebSocket replaces HTTP for applications! It was designed by Google with the help of Microsoft and many other leading companies. All browsers support it. There are no cons.
SocketIO is built on top of the WebSocket protocol (RFC 6455). It was designed to replace AJAX entirely. It does not have scalability issues what-so-ever. It works faster than AJAX while consuming an order of magnitude fewer resources.
AJAX is 10 years old and is built on top of a single JavaScript XMLHTTPRequest function that was added to allow callbacks to servers without reloading the entire page.
In other words, AJAX is a document protocol (HTTP) with a single JavaScript function.
In contrast, WebSocket is a application protocol that was designed to replace HTTP entirely. When you upgrade an HTTP connection (by requesting WebSocket protocol), you enable two-way full duplex communication with the server and no protocol handshaking is involved what so ever. With AJAX, you either must enable keep-alive (which is the same as SocketIO, only older protocol) or, force new HTTP handshakes, which bog down the server, every time you make an AJAX request.
A SocketIO server running on top of Node can handle 100,000 concurrent connections in keep-alive mode using only 4gb of ram and a single CPU, and this limit is caused by the V8 garbage collection engine, not the protocol. You will never, ever achieve this with AJAX, even in your wildest dreams.
Why SocketIO so much faster and consumes so much fewer resources
The main reasons for this is again, WebSocket was designed for applications, and AJAX is a work-around to enable applications on top of a document protocol.
If you dive into the HTTP protocol, and use MVC frameworks, you'll see a single AJAX request will actually transmit 700-900 bytes of protocol load just to AJAX to a URL (without any of your own payload). In striking contrast, WebSocket uses about 10 bytes, or about 70x less data to talk with the server.
Since SocketIO maintains an open connection, there's no handshake, and server response time is limited to round-trip or ping time to the server itself.
There is misinformation that a socket connection is a port connection; it is not. A socket connection is just an entry in a table. Very few resources are consumed, and a single server can provide 1,000,000+ WebSocket connections. An AWS XXL server can and does host 1,000,000+ SocketIO connections.
An AJAX connection will gzip/deflate the entire HTTP headers, decode the headers, encode the headers, and spin up a HTTP server thread to process the request, again, because this is a document protocol; the server was designed to spit out documents a single time.
In contrast, WebSocket simply stores an entry in a table for a connection, approximately 40-80 bytes. That's literally it. No polling occurs, at all.
WebSocket was designed to scale.
As far as SocketIO being messy... This is not the case at all. AJAX is messy, you need promise/response.
With SocketIO, you simply have emitters and receivers; they don't even need to know about each-other; no promise system is needed:
To request a list of users you simply send the server a message...
socket.emit("giveMeTheUsers");
When the server is ready, it will send you back another message. Tada, you're done. So, to process a list of users you simply say what to do when you get a response you're looking for...
socket.on("HereAreTheUsers", showUsers(data) );
That's it. Where is the mess? Well, there is none :) Separation of concerns? Done for you. Locking the client so they know they have to wait? They don't have to wait :) You could get a new list of users whenever... The server could even play back any UI command this way... Clients can connect to each other without even using a server with WebRTC...
Chat system in SocketIO? 10 lines of code. Real-time video conferencing? 80 lines of code Yes... Luke... Join me. use the right protocol for the job... If you're writing an app... use an app protocol.
I think the problem and confusion here is coming from people that are used to using AJAX and thinking they need all the extra promise protocol on the client and a REST API on the back end... Well you don't. :) It's not needed anymore :)
yes, you read that right... a REST API is not needed anymore when you decide to switch to WebSocket. REST is actually outdated. if you write a desktop app, do you communicate with the dialog with REST? No :) That's pretty dumb.
SocketIO, utilizing WebSocket does the same thing for you... you can start to think of the client-side as simple the dialog for your app. You no longer need REST, at all.
In fact, if you try to use REST while using WebSocket, it's just as silly as using REST as the communication protocol for a desktop dialog... there is absolutely no point, at all.
What's that you say Timmy? What about other apps that want to use your app? You should give them access to REST? Timmy... WebSocket has been out for 4 years... Just have them connect to your app using WebSocket, and let them request the messages using that protocol... it will consume 50x fewer resources, be much faster, and 10x easier to develop... Why support the past when you're creating the future?
Sure, there are use cases for REST, but they are all for older and outdated systems... Most people just don't know it yet.
UPDATE:
A LOT of people have been asking me recently how can they start writing an app in 2018 (and now soon 2019) using WebSockets, that the barrier seems really high, that once they play with Socket.IO they don't know where else to turn or what to learn.
Fortunately the last 3 years have been very kind to WebSockets...
There are now 3 major frameworks that support BOTH REST and WebSocket, and even IoT protocols or other minimal/speedy protocols like ZeroMQ, and you don't have to worry about any of it; you just get support for it out of the box.
Note: Although Meteor is by far the most popular, I am leaving it out because although they are a very, very well-funded WebSocket framework, anyone who has coded with Meteor for a few years will tell you, it's an internal mess and a nightmare to scale. Sort of like WordPress is to PHP, it is there, it is popular, but it is not very well made. It's not well-thought out, and it will soon die. Sorry Meteor folks, but check out these 3 other projects compared to Meteor, and you will throw Meteor away the same day :)
With all of the below frameworks, you write your service once, and you get both REST and WebSocket support. What's more, it's a single line of config code to swap between almost any backend database.
Feathers Easiest to use, works the same on the front and backend, and supports most features, Feathers is a collection of light-weight wrappers for existing tools like express. Using awesome tools like feathers-vuex, you can create immutable services that are fully mockable, support REST, WebSocket and other protocols (using Primus), and get free full CRUD operations, including search and pagination, without a single line of code (just some config). Also works really great with generated data like json-schema-faker so you can not only fully mock things, you can mock it with random yet valid data. You can wire up an app to support type-ahead search, create, delete and edit, with no code (just config). As some of you may know, proper code-through-config is the biggest barrier to self-modifying code. Feathers does it right, and will push you towards the front of the pack in the future of app design.
Moleculer Moleculer is unfortunately an order of magnitude better at the backend than Feathers. While feathers will work, and let you scale to infinity, feathers simply doesn't even begin to think about things like production clustering, live server consoles, fault tolerance, piping logs out of the box, or API Gateways (while I've built a production API gateway out of Feathers, Moleculer does it way, way better). Moleculer is also the fastest growing, both in popularity and new features, than any WebSocket framework.
The winning strike with Moleculer is you can use a Feathers or ActionHero front-end with a Moleculer backend, and although you lose some generators, you gain a lot of production quality.
Because of this I recommend learning Feathers on the front and backend, and once you make your first app, try switching your backend to Moleculer. Moleculer is harder to get started with, but only because it solves all the scaling problems for you, and this information can confuse newer users.
ActionHero Listed here as a viable alternative, but Feathers and Moleculer are better implementations. If anything about ActionHero doesn't Jive with you, don't use it; there are two better ways above that give you more, faster.
NOTE: API Gateways are the future, and all 3 of the above support them, but Moleculer literally gives you it out of the box. An API gateway lets you massage your client interaction, allowing caching, memoization, client-to-client messaging, blacklisting, registration, fault tolerance and all other scaling issues to be handled by a single platform component. Coupling your API Gateway with Kubernetes will let you scale to infinity with the least amount of problems possible. It is the best design method available for scalable apps.
Update for 2021:
The industry has evolved so much that you don't even need to pay attention to the protocol. GraphQL now uses WebSockets by default! Just look up how to use subscriptions, and you're done. The fastest way to handle it will occur for you.
If you use Vue, React or Angular, you're in luck, because there is a native GraphQL implementation for you! Just call your data from the server using a GraphQL subscription, and that data object will stay up to date and reactive on it's own.
GraphQL will even fall-back to REST for you when you need to use legacy systems, and subscriptions will still update using sockets. Everything is solved when you move to GraphQL.
Yes, if you thought "WTH?!?" when you heard you can simply subscribe, like with FireBase, to a server object, and it will update itself for you. Yes. That's now true. Just use a GraphQL subscription. It will use WebSockets.
Chat system? 1 line of code.
Real time video system? 1 line of code.
Video game with 10mb of open world data shared across 1m real-time users? 1 line of code. The code is just your GQL query now.
As long as you build or use the right back-end, all this realtime stuff is now done for you with GQL subscriptions. Make the switch as soon as you can and stop worrying about protocols.
Socket.IO uses persistent connection between client and server, so you will reach a maximum limit of concurrent connections depending on the resources you have on server side, while more Ajax async requests can be served with the same resources.
Socket.IO is mainly designed for realtime and bi-directional connections between client and server and in some applications there is no need to keep permanent connections. On the other hand Ajax async connections should pass the HTTP connection setup phase and send header data and all cookies with every request.
Socket.IO has been designed as a single process server and may have scalability issues depending server resources that you are bound to.
Socket.IO in not well suited for applications when you are better to cache results of client requests.
Socket.IO applications face with difficulties with SEO optimization and search engine indexing.
Socket.IO is not a standard and not equivalent to W3C Web Socket API, It uses current Web Socket API if browser supports, socket.io created by a person to resolve cross browser compatibility in real time apps and is so young, about 1 year old. Its learning curve, less developers and community resources compared with ajax/jquery, long term maintenance and less need or better options in future may be important for developer teams to make their code based on socket.io or not.
Sending one way messages and invoking callbacks to them can get very messy.
$.get('/api', sendData, returnFunction); is cleaner than
socket.emit('sendApi', sendData); socket.on('receiveApi', returnFunction);
Which is why dnode and nowjs were built on top of socket.io to make things manageable. Still event driven but without giving up callbacks.
If you were to implement Chat (i.e. a real time text conversation) in Django how would you go about doing it ?
My thoughts on it ( please do have mercy on the noob ) -
Create a table for storing archived messages and one for storing current messages.
And populate the current chat by querying the current messages table every 20 secs using javascript. But this feels so wrong.
There has to be a better way. I've heard something called as the push technology. How do I use it with django ?
P.S. My site is being shared hosted on dreamhost.
Most web chat applications tend to use Comet Programming. Comet is not a real push technology, but more of a simulation of it. First off there are different implementation of comet, but generally pooling and ajax is used to repeatedly check the server to see if there is a message. Comet generally results in too many round trips, and therefore steps have been taken to find more suitable alternatives such as Bosh which simply keep the connection open. This could actually be considered real push as opposed to Comet. The wiki link below list alternatives but in generally I think Comet and Bosh are the most used methods for chat. You could possibly even used both methods together. Here are some links.
Django powered AJAX Chat
Django and Comet
Comet (programming)
If you are mainly concerned with the front end, look into comet.
As for the backend, you have a lot of different options. A more straightforward one would be to store each chat message in the database for the given chat room. Maybe a many to many relation between the chat room table and the chat message.
Other solutions include key value store databases that aren't built in to Django. You could possibly push messages into a redis set, or store active chat room data in memcached.
Since this is on dreamhost, I would look into the database option. The truth is that you have to store some data with each chat message. Who made it, what time it was made, etc. This will have to go into a table at some point in your environment. Try to just make it work and then see if you can make it faster.