I did not see that answer in the documentation, https://golang.org/pkg/net/http/.
It seems pretty complete, but typically I find the built in web servers are never recommended, such as Python, PHP, etc., for anything but development.
Yes. It is a 'production' server if you use it as such. There is no reason why you would not. It is was made with the intent of you using it for real production applications, not just for testing and playing around with the language.
I need to do something relatively simple, and I don't really want to install a MOM like RabittMQ etc.
There are several programs that "register" with a central
"service" server through TCP. The only function of the server is to
call back all the registered clients when they all in turn say
"DONE". So it is a kind of "join" (edit: Barrier) for distributed client processes.
When all clients say "DONE" (they can be done at totally different times), the central server messages
them all saying "ALL-COMPLETE". The clients "block" until asynchronously called back.
So this is a kind of distributed asynchronous Observer Pattern. The server has to keep track of where the clients are somehow. It is ok for the client to pass its IP address to the server etc. It is constructable with things like Boost::Signal, BOOST::Asio, BOOST::Dataflow etc, but I don't want to reinvent the wheel if something simple already exists. I got very close with ZeroMQ, but non of their patterns support this use-case very well, AFAIK.
Is there a very simple system that does this? Notice that the server can be written in any language. I just need C++ bindings for the clients.
After much searching, I used this library
https://github.com/actor-framework
It turns out that doing this with this framework is relatively straightforward. The only real "impediment" to using it is that the library seems to have gotten an API transition recently and the documentation .pdf file has not completely caught up with the source. No biggie since the example programs and the source (.hpp) files get you over this hump. However, they need to bring the docs in sync with the source. In addition, IMO they need to provide more interesting examples on how to use c++ Actors for extreme performance. For my case it is not needed, but the idea of actors (shared nothing) in this use-case is one of the reasons people use it instead shared memory communication when using threads.
Also, getting used to the syntax that the library enforces (get used to lambdas!) if one is not used to state of the art c++11 programs it can be a bit of a mind-twister at first. Then, the triviality of remembering all the clients that registered with the server was the only other caveat.
STRONGLY RECOMMENDED.
Our requirements for a real-time web framework include:
lightweight framework
scala support on server side
flexible on communication mechanism : may be Ajax, Server Sent Event or WebSocket.
relatively little changes required to client html.
E.g. using the WebSockets js library is fine
introducing significant compile time/server side page processing is not. E.g. Play routing annotations are not acceptable
must have working examples for both:
web clients
server to server communications
fully functional build. Preferably sbt, but maven maybe acceptable
I have evaluated the following frameworks: and each one of them has one or more drawbacks that make usage within our application less than desirable.
Play: somewhat heavy, but more importantly it introduces custom annotations/processing into the html page. We need VANILLA html pages.
Spray: closer to the mark. But although I found a number of example applications, the actor-based communication is not working in those examples. The SimpleServer example has a built-in "cases" counter (from SimpleClient) that do not work as given: they could certainly be made to work .. eventually..
atmosphere: lacking examples
jetty, netty: lacked fully functional examples buildable within sbt or maven
socko : The markdown essentially stipulates using eclipse/scala-IDE for running tests/doing development. That is a non-starter for us (IJ shop). It was unclear how to run examples and/or start their servers from sbt / command line.
I ended up writing a fair amount of custom code wrapped around Netty. After it is in better shape I may drop it on GitHub.
http://xitrum-framework.github.io/ is actively developed and contains SocksJs support. It is rather lightweight, you can directly annotate routes on actors and they become exposed on the web.
I was trying to create my website using CGI and ERB, but when I search on the web, I see people saying I should always avoid using CGI, and always use Rack.
I understand CGI will fork a lot of Ruby processes, but if I use FastCGI, only one persistent process will be created, and it is adopted by PHP websites too. Plus FastCGI interface only create one object for one request and has very good performance, as opposed to Rack which creates 7 objects at once.
Is there any specific reason I should not use CGI? Or it is just false assumption and it is entirely ok to use CGI/FastCGI?
CGI, by which I mean both the interface and the common programming libraries and practices around it, was written in a different time. It has a view of request handlers as distinct processes connected to the webserver via environment variables and standard I/O streams.
This was state-of-the-art in its day, when there were not really "web frameworks" and "embedded server modules" as we think of them today. Thus...
CGI tends to be slow
Again, the CGI model spawns one new process per connection. While spawning processes per se is cheap these days, heavy web app initialization — reading and parsing scores of modules, making database connections, etc. — makes this quite expensive.
CGI tends toward too-low-level (IMHO) design
Again, the CGI model explicitly mentions environment variables and standard input as the interface between request and handler. But ... who cares? That's much lower level than the app designer should generally be thinking about. If you look at libraries and code based on CGI, you'll see that the bulk of it encourages "business logic" right alongside form parsing and HTML generation, which is now widely seen as a dangerous mixing of concerns.
Contrast with something like Rack::Builder, where right away the coder is thinking of mapping a namespace to an action, and what that means for the broader web application. (Suddenly we are free to argue about the semantic web and the virtues of REST and this and that, because we're not thinking about generating radio buttons based off user-supplied input.)
Yes, something like Rack::Builder could be implemented on top of CGI, but, that's the point. It'd have to be a layer of abstraction built on top of CGI.
CGI tends to be sneeringly dismissed
Despite CGI working perfectly well within its limitations, despite it being simple and widely understood, CGI is often dismissed out of hand. You, too, might be dismissed out of hand if CGI is all you know.
Don't use CGI. Please. It's not worth it. Back in the 1990s when nobody knew better it seemed like a good idea, but that was when scripts were infrequent, used for special cases like handling form submissions, not driving entire sites.
FastCGI is an attempt at a "better CGI" but it's still deficient in a large number of ways, especially because you have to manage your FastCGI worker processes.
Rack is a much better system, and it works very well. If you use Rack, you have a wide variety of hosting systems to choose from, even Passenger which is really simple and reliable.
I don't know what mean when you say Rack creates "7 objects at once" unless you mean there are 7 different Rack processes running somehow or you've made a mistake in your implementation.
I can't think of a single instance where CGI would be better than a Rack equivalent.
There exists a lot of confusion about what CGI, Rack etc. really are. As I describe here, Rack is an API, and FastCGI is a protocol. CGI is also a protocol, but in its narrow sense also an implementation, and for what you're speaking of is not at all the same thing as FastCGI. So let's start with the background.
Back in the early 90s, web servers simply read files (HTML, images, whatever) off the disk and sent them to the client. People started to want to do some processing at the time of the request, and the early solution that came out was to run a program that would produce the result sent back to the client, rather than just reading the file. The "protocol" for this was for the web server to be given a URL that it was configured to execute as a program (e.g., /cgi-bin/my-script), where the web server would then set up a set of environment variables with various information about the request and run the program with the body of the request on the standard input. This was referred to as the "Common Gateway Interface."
Given that this forks off a new process for every request, it's clearly inefficient, and you almost certainly don't want to use this style of dynamic request handling on high-volume web sites. (Starting a whole new process is relatively expensive in computational resources.)
One solution to making this more efficient is to, rather than starting a new process, send the request information to an existing process that's already running. This is what FastCGI is all about; it maintains a very similar interface to CGI (you have a set of variables with most of the request information, and a stream of data for the body of the request). But instead of setting actual Unix environment variables and starting a new process with the body on stdin, it sends a request similar to an HTTP request to an FCGI server already running on the machine where it specifies the values of these variables and the request body contents.
If the web server can have the program code embedded in it somehow, this becomes even more efficient because it just runs the code itself. Two classic examples of how you might do this would be:
Have PHP embedded in Apache, so that the "Apache server code" just calls the "PHP server code" that's part of the same process; and
Not run Apache at all, but have the web server be written in Ruby (or Python, or whatever) and load and run more Ruby code that's been custom-written to handle the request.
So where does Rack come in to this? Rack is an API that lets code that handles web requests receive it in a common way, regardless of the web server. So given some Ruby code to process a request that uses the Rack API, the web server might:
Be a Ruby web server that simply makes function calls in its own process to the Rack-compliant code that it loaded;
Be a web server (written in any language) that uses the FastCGI protocol to talk to another process with FastCGI server code that, again, makes function calls to the Rack-compliant code that handles the request; or
Be a server that starts a brand new process that interprets the CGI environment variables and standard input passed to it and then calls the Rack-compliant code.
So whether you're using CGI, FastCGI, another inter-process protocol, or an intra-process protocol, makes no difference; you can do any of those using Rack so long as the server knows about it or is talking to a process that can understand CGI, FastCGI or whatever and call Rack-compliant code based on that request.
So:
For performance scaling, you definitely don't want to be using CGI; you want to be using FastCGI, a similar protocol (such as the Tomcat one), or direct in-process calling of the code.
If you use the Rack API, you don't need to worry at the early stages which protocol you're using between your web server and your program because the whole point of APIs like Rack is that you can change it later.
I'm looking to make some relatively simple pages with some relatively small pieces of dynamic content inside.
I have looked into embedded Ruby as a potential alternative to php in this situation, and it looks rather interesting. Which implementation should I use, and how should I integrate this with a web server such as Apache? In other words, what is analogous to something like mod_php or php through CGI?
My primary goal here is convenience. I would like this to require less effort to implement and maintain. Also, I am looking to have access to things like HTTP request parameters and other such goodies in a convenient format (i.e. if I use CGI, I don't want to be parsing argv manually).
Thanks.
Probably the easiest solution would be to run an application server via Thin and have Apache proxy to it. Your application can use whatever HTTP and templating libraries you like. Take a look at Sinatra if you're not familiar. It's very lightweight and flexible.