What C++ software stack do developers use to create custom fast, responsive and not very resource hungry web services?
I'd recommend you to take a look on CppCMS:
http://cppcms.com
It exactly fits the situation you had described:
performance-oriented (preferably web service) software stack
for C++ web development.
It should have a low memory footprint
work on UNIX (FreeBSD) and Linux systems
perform well under high server load and be able to handle many requests with great efficiency
[as I plan to use it in a virtual environment] where resources will be to some extent limited.
So far I have only come across Staff WSF, Boost, Poco libraries. The latter two could be used to implement a custom web server...
The problem that web server is about 2% of web development there are so much stuff to handle:
web templates
sessions
cache
forms
security-security-security - which is far from being trivial
And much more, that is why you need web frameworks.
You could write an apache module, and put all your processing code in there.
Or there's CppCMS, or Treefrog or for writing web services (not web sites) use gSOAP or Apache Axis
But ultimately, there's no "easy to use framework" because C++ developers like to build apps from smaller components. There's no Ruby-style framework, but there is all manner of libraries for handling xml or whatever, and Apache offers the http protocol bits in the module spec so you can build up your app quite happily using whatever pieces make sense to you. Now whether there's a market for bundling this up to make something easier to use is another matter.
Personally, the best web app system I wrote (for a company) used a very think web layer in the web server (IIS and ASP, but this applies to any webserver, use php for example) that did nothing except act as a gateway to pass the data from the requests through to a C++ service. The C++ service could then be written completely as a normal C++ command line server with well-defined entry points, using as thin an RPC system as possible (shared memory, but you may want to check out ZeroMQ), which not only increased security but allowed us to easily scale by shifting the services to app servers and running the web servers on different hardware. It was also really easy to test.
Related
Our team is in the design phase of a client-server database software project. We're intending to develop a single database server system, probably using MySQL with a database interface/abstraction layer, possibly written in Java. We will also (eventually) have multiple client programs talking to the server. So the question is, what do we use for communication between the server and what could end up being several totally different clients? (Think Android, iPhone, desktop, or even a Web server, forwarding to a browser.)
The two main camps right now are arguing between using:
1. completely custom socket software, because it should allow system independence,
2. exposing a Web service of some kind, because it would provide higher-level functionality
Any ideas? I know "Web service" and "Web API" are very general terms that sort of evoke nauseating buzzword-crazy five-year-old tech media, but they are definitely a valid option. Right?
Plain socket APIs have the advantage of working anywhere. The disadvantage is that they're hard to do right.
Since it sounds like you're going to end up with a database-like API over the network, you should at least consider oData.
I'd like to give external access to a web application. Several applications on many clients will use this service extensively (hopefully), which will always lead to CRUD functions on a database.
Is a webservice always the first choice? Is there any rule of thumb when to choose webservices, sockets, etc?
It really depends on who your clients are, what kind of performance are you looking at, how well your clients know the technologies.
Sockets etc might give you a good performance speed but development time might increase for both, you and your clients.
SOAP web services established a standard quite some time back but now people are using REST web services more because of its simplicity and less overhead.
I am heavily impressed by the RESTful webservices offered by twilio
I am sure that Twilio is receiving hundreds of thousands of calls a day and they are performing just well.
Have a look at the following articles for more understanding about them
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-restful/
http://grails.org/doc/1.0.x/guide/13.%20Web%20Services.html
The big benefit of web services is the ease of use and the predefined interface, but they are "slower" compared to low level socket communication, because for example the XML Requests/Respnses of a SOAP-Service needs to be created/interpreded.
So I would say if you open the service to "outsider" use web services unless speed is really the biggest concern.
Also because web services are mostly accessable through port 80 you have much less problems with proxy/firewalls than with a socket on a random other port.
If you are having a high work load cahcing is also very important because it can speed up the system dramaticaly.
I would choose a web services (SOAP or REST) whenever I can. It's easier to scale a web service than a home brew socket implementation and it takes less time to build a webservice.
Sockets is usually the preferred choice if you need two-way communication (I know that WCF has callbacks).
Webservice makes it a generic way for different type of clients and applications to exchange data also it is dependent on your architecure and infrastructure.
Socket programming is bit complex and some time may create problem in data exchange. It entirely depends on your fuctionaly requirements and architecure which should you use.
if your clients will consume this data from browsers of application then webservice is better choice.
I'm working on a project of which a large part is server side software. I started programming in C++ using the sockets library. But, one of my partners suggested that we use a standard server like IIS, Apache or nginx.
Which one is better to do, in the long run? When I program it in C++, I have direct access to the raw requests where as in the case of using standard servers I need to use a scripting language to handle the requests. In any case, which one is the better option and why?
Also, when it comes to security for things like DDOS attacks etc., do the standard servers already have protection? If I would want to implement it in my socket server, what is the best way?
"Server side software" could mean lots of different things, for example this could be a trivial app which "echoes" everything back on a specific port, to a telnet/ftp server to a webserver running lots of "services".
So where in this gamut of possibilities does your particular application lie? Without further information, it's difficult to make any suggestions, but let's see..
Web Services, i.e. your "server side" requirement is to handle individual requests and respond having done some set of business logic. Typically communication is via SOAP/XML, and this is ideal if you bave web based clients (though nothing prevents your from accessing these services via standalone clients). Typially you host these on web servers as you mentioned, and often they are easiest written in Java (I've yet to come across one that needed to be written in C++!)
Simple web site - slightly different to the above, respods to HTML get/post requests and serves up static or dymanic content (I'm guessing this is not what you're after!)
Standalone server which responds to something specific, here you'd have to implement your own "messaging"/protocols etc. and the server will carry out a specific function on incoming request and potentially send responses back. Key thing here is that the server does something specific, and is not a generic container (at which point 1 makes more sense!)
So where does your application lie? If 1/2 use Java or some scripting language (such as Perl/ASP/JSP etc.) If 3, you can certainly use C++, and if you do, use a suitable abstraction, such as boost::asio and Google Protocol buffers, save yourself a lot of headache...
With regards to security, ofcourse bugs and security holes are found all the time, however the good thing with some of these OS projects is that the community will tackle and fix them. Let's just say, you'll be safer using them than your own custom handrolled imlpementation, the likelyhood that you'll be able to address all the issues that they would have encountered in the years they've been around is very small (no disrespect to your abilities!)
EDIT: now that there's a little more info, here is one possible approach (this is what I've done in the past, and I've jused Java most of the way..)
The client facing server should be something reliable, esp. if it's over the internet, here I would use a proven product, something like Apache is good or IIS (depends on which technologies you have available). IMHO, I would go for jBoss AS - really powerful and easily customisable piece of kit, and integrates really nicely with lots of different things (all Java ofcourse!) You could then have a simple bit of Java which can then delegate to your actual Server processes that do the work..
For the Server procesess you can use C++ if that's what you are comfortable with
There is one key bit which I left out, and this is how 1 & 2 talk to each other. This is where you should look at an open source messaging product (even more higher level than asio or protocol buffers), and here I would look at something like Zero MQ, or Red Hat Messaging (both are MQ messaging protocols), the great advantage of this type of "messaging bus" is that there is no tight coupling between your servers, with your own handrolled implementation, you'll be doing lots of boilerplate to get the interaction to work just right, with something like MQ, you'll have multiplatform communication without having to get into the details... You wil save yourself a lot of time and bother if you elect to use something like that.. (btw. there are other messaging products out there, and some are easier to use - such as Tibco RV or EMS etc, however they are commercial products and licenses will cost a lot of money!)
With a messaging solution your servers become trivial as they simply handle incoming messagins and send messages back out again, and you can focus on the business logic...
my two pennies... :)
If you opt for 1st solution in Nim's list (web services) I would suggest you to have a look at WSO's web services framework for C++ , Axis CPP and Axis2/C web services framework (if you are not restricted to C++). Web Services might be the best solution for your requirement as you can quickly build them and use either as processing or proxy modules on the server side of your system.
I'm in the process of planning a web service, which will be written in C++. The goal is to be able to select more or less any web server to drive the service. For this to become true, I obviously have to choose a standardized interface between web servers and applications.
Well known methods that I've heard of are:
CGI
FastCGI
WSGI
Now, as I have absolutely no experience on using those interfaces, I don't really know what to choose. I do have some requirements though.
needs to be reasonably fast (from what I've heard of, this pretty much rules out CGI)
should be easily usable in a pure C/C++ environment (e.g. there should be libraries available)
must provide support for HTTP 1.1 (dunno if that matters)
Thanks for any suggestions :)
WSGI is for Python apps; if your language is C++ this isn't an option.
FCGI is a good way to go. An FCGI can be invoked as a standard CGI, convenient for debugging and testing, then run as an FCGI in production.
Performance of CGI vs. FCGI depends a lot on what you're trying to do and the amount of traffic you expect. Tasks that have a lot of startup overhead benefit most from FCGI; the FCGI controller can be configured to spawn additional processes to handle heavy loads.
Practically any web server will run CGI with minimal configuration; you'll likely need an additional module to run FCGI but that depends on the web server.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FastCGI
there is nothing "slow" about CGI it just isn't scalable. FCGI is more scalable but you can't easily develop in that environment because the process is long lived and makes debugging a nightmare. HTTP/1.1 isn't an issue at this level of abstraction. If you are worried about speed and at this point without any profiling or testing you shouldn't be, but these interfaces are not about speed they are about compatibility. Speed will depend on the container you are running your code from.
there shouldnt be much problems with CGI/fastCGI. if you implement fastcgi, your program can still run as normal CGI. and most web servers support cgi/fastcgi.
I develop industrial client/server application (C++) with strong real time requirements.
I feel it is time to change the look of the client interface - which is developed in MFC - but I am wondering which would be the right choice.
If I go for a web client is there any way to exchange data between C++ and javascript other than AJAX <-> Web service <-> COM ?
Requirements for the web client are: Quick statuses refresh, user commands, tables
My team had to make that same decision a few months ago...
The cool thing about making it a web application would be that it would be very easy to modify later on. Even the user of the interface (with a little know-how) could modify it to suit his/her needs. Custom software becomes just that much easier.
We went with a web interface and ajax seems the way to go, it was quite responsive.
On the other hand, depending on how strong your real time requirements are, it might prove difficult. We had the challenge of plotting real time data through a browser, we ended up going with a firefox plugin to draw the plot. If you're simply trying to display real time text data, it shouldn't be as big an issue.
Run some tests for your specific application and see what it looks like.
Something else to consider, if you are having a web page be an interface to your server, keep in mind you will need to figure a way to update one client when another changes the state of the server if you plan on allowing multiple interfaces to your server.
I usually build my applications 2-folded :
Have the real heavy-duty application CLI-only. The protocol used is usually text-only based, composed of requests and answers.
Wrap a GUI around as another process that talks to the CLI back-end.
The web interface is then just another GUI to wrap around. It is also much easier to wrap a REST/JSON based API on the CLI interface (just automatically translate the messages).
The debugging is also quite easy to do, since you can just dump the requests between the 2 elements and reproduce the bugs much more easily.
Write an HTTP server in your server to handle the AJAX feedback. If you don't want to serve files, create your server on a non-standard port (eg. 8081) and use a regular web server for the actual web page delivery. Now have your AJAX engine communicate with the server on the Bizarro port instead of port 80.
But it's not that hard to write the file server part, also. If you do that, you also get to generate web pages on-the-fly with your data pre-filled, if you want.
Google Desktop Search does this now. When I search my desktop for 'foobar', the URL that opens is this:
http://127.0.0.1:4664/search?q=foobar&flags=68&num=10
In this case, the 4664 is the Bizarro port. (GoogleDesktop serves all the data here; it only uses the Bizarro port to avoid conflicts with any web server I might be running.)
You may want to consider where your data lives. If your application feeds a back-end database, you could write a web app leaving your c++ code in tact -- the web application would be independent and offer up pages to web users and talk directly to the database -- In this case you have as many options, and more, as you have indicated.