Well...
I am working with an mobile application and a web server.
A characteristic of my web server is that it generates different set of data randomly. In other words, I cannot predict when the server will have ready data to send to the mobile app.
On other hand, the mobile app need to receive all data that the server generates. An approach could be request multiple times to get all these data. Indeed, It isn't a good approach, because I don't know when request the data.
If the mobile app could listen the server, after one start request or keep on the connection, for example, the server could sent any set of data in any time.
The question is: What is protocol suitable to this situation? How could I use that? Examples?
Thank you!
You could create a persistent TCP/IP connection to the server and permanently listen for incoming data (using a custom protocol or propably something websocket based). However such a permanent connection might seriously affect your battery life if it's for a mobile device. You will also lose the connection if the operating system automatically shuts down your application because it's out of memory.
The default approach to this problem are Push notification / Push services, where your server sends a notification about new data to a server of the phone provider (e.g. Microsoft or Apple push server), and this server sends the notification (as well as notificaiton from other online services) to your phone.
Some info for Windows Phone:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh221549.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsphone/develop/ff402558%28v=vs.105%29.aspx
Depending on how often you have new data both approaches can make sense.
WebSockets could be the answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSocket
Specifically, for Windows Phone, there's a solution also: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsphone/develop/ff402558(v=vs.105).aspx
Related
I am writing a server and client code where i want to identify on server side official client software sending data.
The protocol is text based, so anyone can write it's own client - and i want to keep it, but want to group the devices by "Official" / "Non Official" based on the 'fingerprint' of my official client application.
Question:
How can i filter out my clients from other clones sending?
I am thinking to send encrypted message from my client to SERVER using the same key, so once decoded if it's valid, then i know its my app code sending - but before i go this way, any other better ideas ?
I want to develop a Qt5/C++ client-server application using remote procedure calls (RPC).
Idea:
The server listens for incoming connections of multiple clients.
Clients offer a set of procedures/services the server can call in order to collect data from clients and inform other clients about changes.
And here is the catch:
The RPC libs i've seen so far seem to expect the server to offer a service the clients may call. But I want to do the opposite. Clients should offer services the server may call.
The direction is important, because I want to enable port forwarding on the server side only, not on the client side.
The libs I've checked are:
QtRpc2 (https://github.com/brendan0powers/QtRpc2)
grpc (http://www.grpc.io)
Questions:
Is there a reason these libs offer services on server side only?
Did I maybe only miss that part in the documentation?
Is there an RPC lib that does offer client side service offering?
gRPC supports bidirectional streaming, which may meet your needs.
Clients can open a long lived connection to a server, and then the server can "call" the clients by sending responses on the stream.
The client can respond by sending another message on the stream.
http://www.grpc.io/docs/tutorials/basic/c.html
I have an application server. At a high level, this application server has users and groups. Users are part of one or more groups, and the server keeps all users aware of the state of their groups and other users in their groups. There are three major functions:
Updating and broadcasting meta-data relating to users and their groups; for example, a user logs in and the server updates this user's status and broadcasts it to all online users in this user's groups.
Acting as a proxy between two or more users; the client takes advantage of peer-to-peer transfer, but in the case that two users are unable to directly connect to each other, the server will act as a proxy between them.
Storing data for offline users; if a client needs to send some data to a user who isn't online, the server will store that data for a period of time and then send it when the user next comes online.
I'm trying to modify this application to allow it to be distributed across multiple servers, not necessarily all on the same local network. However, I have a requirement that backwards compatibility with old clients cannot be broken; essentially, the distribution needs to be transparent to the client.
The biggest problem I'm having is handling the case of a user connected to Server A making an update that needs to be broadcast to a user on Server B.
By extension, an even bigger problem is when a user on Server A needs the server to act as a proxy between them and a user on Server B.
My initial idea was to try to assign each user a preferred server, using some algorithm that takes which users they need to communicate with into account. This could reduce the number of users who may need to communicate with users on other servers.
However, this only minimizes how often users on different servers will need to communicate. I still have the problem of achieving the communication between users on different servers.
The only solution I could come up with for this is having the servers connect to each other, when they need to deal with a user connected to a different server.
For example, if I'm connected to Server A and I need a proxy with another user connected to Server B, I would ask Server A for a proxy connection to this user. Server A would see that the other user is connected to Server B, so it would make a 'relay' connection to Server B. This connection would just forward my requests to Server B and the responses to me.
The problem with this is that it would increase bandwidth usage, which is already extremely high. Unfortunately, I don't see any other solution.
Are there any well known or better solutions to this problem? It doesn't seem like it's very common for a distributed system to have the requirement of communication between users on different servers.
I don't know how much flexibility you have in modifying the existing server. The way I did this a long time ago was to have all the servers keep a TCP connection open to each other. I used a UDP broadcast which told the other servers about each other and allowed them to connect to new servers and remove servers that stopped sending the broadcast.
Then everytime a user connects to a server that server Unicasts a TCP message to all the servers it is connected to, and all the servers keeps a list of users and what server they are on.
Then as you suggest if you get a message from one user to another user on another server you have to relay that to the other server. The servers really need to be on the same LAN for this to work well.
You can run the server to server communications in a thread, and actually simulate the user being on the same server.
However maintaining the user lists and sending messages is prone to race conditions (like a user drops off while you are relaying the message from one server to another etc).
Maintaining the server code was a nightmare and this is really not the most efficient way to implement scalable servers. But if you have to use the legacy server code base then you really do not have too many options.
If you can look into using a language that supports remote processes and nodes like Erlang.
An alternative might be to use a message queue system like RabbitMQ or ActiveMQ, and have the servers talk to each other through that. Those system are designed to be scalable, and usually work off a Publish/Subscribe mechanism.
I'm not real hip on exactly what role(s) today's proxy servers can play and I'm learning so go easy on me :-) I have a client/server system I have written using a homegrown protocol and need to enhance the client side to negotiate its way out of a proxy environment.
I have an existing client and server system written in C and C++ for the speed and a small amount of MFC in the client to handle the user interface. I have written both the server and client side of the system on Windows (the people I work for are mainly web developers using Windows everything - not a choice) sticking to Berkeley Sockets as it were via wsock32 for efficiency. The clients connect to the server through a nonstandard port (even though using port 80 is an option to get out of some environments but the protocol that goes over it isn't HTTP). The TCP connection(s) stay open for the duration of the clients participation in real time conferences.
Our customer base is expanding to all kinds of networked environments. I have been able to solve a lot of problems by adding the ability to connect securely over port 443 and using secure sockets which allows the protocol to pass through a lot environments since the internal packets can't be sniffed. But more and more of our customers are behind a proxy server environment and my direct connections don't make it through. My old school understanding of proxy servers is that they act as a proxy for external HTML content over HTTP, possibly locally caching popular material for faster local access, and also allowing their IT staff to blacklist certain destination sites. Customer are complaining that my software doesn't recognize and easily navigate its way through their proxy environments but I'm finding it difficult to decide what my "best fit" solution should be. My software doesn't tear down the connection after each client request, and on top of that packets can come from either side at any time, basically your typical custom client/server system for a specific niche.
My first reaction is "why can't they just add my server's addresses to their white list" but if there is a programmatic way I can get through without requiring their IT staff to help it is politically better and arguably a better solution anyway. Plus maybe I'm still not understanding the role and purpose of what proxy servers and environments have grown to be these days.
My first attempt at a solution was to use WinInet with its various proxy capabilities to establish a connection over port 80 to my non-standard protocol server (which knows enough to recognize and answer a simple HTTP-looking GET request and answer it with a simple HTTP response page to get around some environments that employ initial packet sniffing (DPI)). I retrieved the actual SOCKET handle behind WinInet's HINTERNET request object and had hoped to use that in place of my software's existing SOCKET connection and hopefully not need to change much more on the client side. It initially seemed to be my solution but on further inspection it seems that the OS gets first-chance at the received data on this socket since when I get notified of events via the standard select(...) statement on the socket and query the size of the data available via ioctlsocket the call succeeds but returns 0 bytes available, the reads don't work and it goes downhill from there.
Can someone tell me of a client-side library (commercial is fine) will let me get past these proxy server environments with as little user and IT staff help as possible? From what I read it has grown past SOCKS and I figure someone has to have solved this problem before me.
Thanks for reading my long-winded question,
Ripred
If your software can make an SSL connection on port 443, then you are 99% of the way there.
Typically HTTP proxies are set up to proxy SSL-on-443 (for the purposes of HTTPS). You just need to teach your software to use the HTTP proxy. Check the HTTP RFCs for the full details, but the Cliffs Notes version is:
Connect to the HTTP proxy on the proxy port;
Send to the proxy:
.
CONNECT your.real.server:443 HTTP/1.1\r\n
Host: your.real.server:443\r\n
User-Agent: YourSoftware/1.234\r\n
\r\n
Then parse the proxy response, which will start with a HTTP status code, followed by HTTP headers, followed by a blank line. You'll then be talking with your destination (if the status code indicated success, anyway), and can start talking SSL.
In many corporate environments you'll have to authenticate with the proxy - this is almost always HTTP Basic Authentication, which is pretty easy - again, see the RFCs.
We have a mobile Application in a very unsteady WLan Environment. Sending Data to a webserver could result in a timeout or in a lost WLan connection.
How do we ensure, that our data is delivered correctly? Is there a possibility of having Web Services Reliable Messaging (WSRM) on the device?
MSMQ is no option at the moment.
WSRM isn't supported. A reliable mechanism is to ensure that either the Web Service responds to the upload with an ack after the data has been received (i.e. a synchronous call) or that when you start the upload you get back a transaction ID that you can then send back to the service at a later point to ensure that it has been delivered before local deletion.