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.
What can be the reasons that cause a socket.io session to be crashed and server returns invalid session or session is disconnected ?
There is a specific situation that causes these problems with the session. When a client fails to send the pings at the expected interval the server declares the client gone and deletes the session. If a client that falls into this situation later tries to send a ping or another request using the now invalidated session id it will receive one of these errors.
Another possible problem with the same outcome is when the client does send the pings at the correct intervals, but the server is blocked or too busy to process these pings in time.
So to summarize, if you think your clients are well behaved, I would look at potential blocking tasks in your server.
Ok, I'll illustrate my problem in this figure project's architecture .
In fact, I have a websocket between the react app and the rasa ( tool for creating chatbots) based on flask. bot response need to access to an external API to retrieve some data. Here where things go wrong. Sometimes, these requests take too long to return a response, and that's when websocket misbehave.
In microservice architecture, It is suggested that:
client app to API gateway communication should be synchronous (like
REST over http).
API gateway to micro-service communication should also be
synchronous
But service to service communication should be asynchronous.
Another rule you should try to follow, as much as possible, is to use
only asynchronous messaging between the internal services, and to use
synchronous communication (such as HTTP) only from the client apps to
the front-end services (API Gateways plus the first level of
microservices).
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/microservices-architecture/architect-microservice-container-applications/asynchronous-message-based-communication
Now, If I understood it right, when user requests to API gateway, and in turn it calls the fist service, it will return a acknowledgement (with some GUID) which will be passed to client application. But services will keep on executing the request.
Now the question pop ups, how will they notify the client application when the request is processed completely. One way is that client can check the status using the GUID passed to it.
But can it be done with some push notification? How can we integrate server to server push notification?
I have little bit different understanding on this as it says communication between services should be asynchronous while communication to API gateway and API gateway to service should be rest API.
so we don't need to do anything as these are simple API calls and pipeline will handle request-response tracking while asynchronous calls between services will increase the throughput of the service.
Now, If I understood it right, when user requests to API gateway, and in turn it calls the fist service, it will return a acknowledgement (with some GUID) which will be passed to client application. But services will keep on executing the request.
No, the microservices should not continue to execute the request, it is already finished. They will, when it is required, update their internal cache (local representation to be more precise) of the needed remote data (data from the microservice that executed the request) when that remote data has changed. The best way to do that update is using integration events (i.e. when a microservice executes a request that mutates the data, it publishes an event to the subscribed microservices).
The microservices should not communicate not even asynchronously in order to fulfill a request from the gateway or clients. They should use background tasks to prepare the data ahead of time for when a request comes.
You're depicting a scenario where the whole interaction between the system and external actors (to be rude, the users) follows an asynchronous model. This is perfectly reasonable, but just if you really need it. Matter of fact, if you are choosing to let 'the outside' interact with your system through REST APIs, maybe you don't need it at all.
If the system receives requests through a synchronous application endpoint, such as REST endpoint, it has to complete requests before to send a response, otherwise it would be meaningless. consider an API like
POST users/:username/notifications
a notification is synchronous by it's nature, but the the request just states that 'a new notification should be appendend to the notifications collection of user'. The API responds 201 that means 'ok, the notification is already associated with the user, it will be pushed on some channel, eventually'. This is a 'transactional' way to describe an asynchronous interaction
Another scenario comes when the user wants to subscribe the notification channel. I expect that this would be implemented with a bi-directional, asynchronous, pubsub communication protocol, such as websockets.
In both cases, however, doesn't matter how microservices communicate with each other, if the request is synchronous, the first service of 'the chain' should wait until is ready to respond. This is the reason beacause API gateway forwards the request in http.
On the other hand, aynchronous communication could be used to enforce consistency between services, instead of to make the actual communication. Let's say that the Orders service sends data to a broker. each time some attribute on the orders[orderId] is changed, it published the change in /orders/:orderId topic. At the same time, expose an internal http point. each service caches data from the services which depends on. The user service make a GET /orders/:orderId , while sends a response to the requester, puts the data in a local cache and subscribes the orders/:orderId topic. each time that a 'mutation' is sent on this topic, the User service catches it and applies the mutation on the corresponding cached object. The communication is syncrhonous, keeps to be synchronous and it' relatively simple to manage; at the same time your system can hold replicated data and be still [eventually] consistent
I have an unknown App consuming my Spring webservices.
The app set a timeout to every webservice calls.
The server regardless of the app timeout keeps processing.
Is there a risk of any other webservice call in receiving a misresponse (the response to the timed out webservice call)? How does Spring manages this? Doesn't HTTP protocol take care of this, given that each connection channel is open for a particular call to webservice and if broken there shouldn't be possible to retrieve the response?
As a developer, you should try to make all possible HTTP requests to your web server to be idempotent. It means that the client side has to be able to retry the failed request without new possible errors due to the inability to know the previous (timeout) request results.
The client side should handle the HTTP client timeouts himself and (by default) should treat the timeout error as a failure. Your clientside may repeat the request later and the server side should be able to handle the same request.
The solutions may vary for different tasks depending on complexity (from an INSERT statement to the database or scheduling a new CRON job avoiding duplication).
I'm building an HTTP -> IRC proxy, it receives messages via an HTTP request and should then connect to an IRC server and post them to a channel (chat room).
This is all fairly straightforward, the one issue I have is that a connection to an IRC server is a persistent socket that should ideally be kept open for a reasonable period of time - unlike HTTP requests where a socket is opened and closed for each request (not always true I know). The implication of this is that a message bound for the same IRC server/room must always be sent via the same process (the one that holds a connection to the IRC server).
So I basically need to receive the HTTP request on my web processes, and then have them figure out which specific worker process has an open connection to the IRC server and route the message to that process.
I would prefer to avoid the complexity of a message queue within the IRC proxy app, as we already have one sitting in front of it that sends it the HTTP requests in the first place.
With that in mind my ideal solution is to have a shared datastore between the web and worker processes, and to have the worker processes maintain a table of all the IRC servers they're connected to. When a web process receives an HTTP request it could then look up the table to figure out if there is already a worker with a connection the the required IRC server and forward the message to that, or if there is no existing connection it could effectively act as a load balancer and pick an appropriate worker to forward the message to so it can establish and hold a connection to the IRC server.
Now to do this it would require my worker processes to be able to start an HTTP server and listen for requests from the web processes. On Heroku I know only web processes are added to the public facing "routing mesh" which is fine, what I would like to know is is it possible to send HTTP requests between a web and worker process internally within Herokus network (outside of the "routing mesh").
I will use a message queue if I must be as I said I'd like to avoid it.
Thanks!