What is a good way to implement server to client callbacks (events) with a web service?
We already have a SOAP-based API exposed by mod_perl running on Apache, but it is one way client to server. We need to notify the client of certain changes on the server by other clients.
What is a good way to make this work? Available modules for perl?
One thing we thought of was to make a long running web request that would finally respond when an event occurred, but this would seem to keep too many mod_perl processes running if many clients were connected.
One way is the one you mentioned, long-running polls.
The other is websockets. There are many Perl frameworks which are able to deal with websockets requests, one of which is Mojolicious.
See the docs at Mojolicious::Lite#WebSockets for some examples.
I would suggest in your case running the websockets webapp separately from the mod_perl server, and "just" using Apache to reverse-proxy the mojolicious app.
Have you actually tried your first approach ? How many max concurrent clients would that be? A few dozens should be manageable by apache. Just guessing.
Have you tried this low-tech method "Watching long processes through CGI", or is it what you wanted to get rid of in the first place?
Related
I'm new to Django and Channels and so far I couldn't find any solution to the issue that I face:
I need to communicate with an external WebSocket, to process received data and then sent it to some Channels groups or maybe start some Celery tasks based on that output.
As I've understood it's not a good practice to put that logic inside Consumer. What is the right way of doing this in Django?
Thanks
It'S probably not at all best practice to do it in Django in first place. Django is a Web Framework, that processes individual http requests. Connecting to websockets for potentially longer running process should happen in another component of your architecture.
Background:
I've a local application that process the user input for 3 second (approximately) and then return an answer (output) to the user.
(I don't want to go into details about my application in purpose of not complicate the question and keep it a pure architectural question)
My Goal:
I want to make my application a service in the cloud and expose API
(for the upcoming website and for clients that will connect the service without install the software locally)
Possible Solutions:
Deploy WCF on the cloud and use my application there, so clients can invoke the service and use my application on the cloud. (RPC style)
Use a Web-API that will insert the request into queue and then a worker role will dequeue requests and post the results to a DB, so the client will send one request for creating a request in the queue, and another request for getting the result (which the Web-API will get from the DB).
The Problems:
If I go with the WCF solution (#1) I cant handle great loads of requests, maybe 10-20 simultaneously.
If I go with the WebAPI-Queue-WorkerRole solution (#2) sometimes the client will need to request the results multiple times its can be a problem.
If I go with the WebAPI-Queue-WorkerRole solution (#2) the process isn't sync, the client will not get the result once the process of his request is done, he need to request the result.
Questions:
In the WebAPI-Queue-WorkerRole solution (#2), can I somehow alert the client once his request has processed and done ? so I can save the client multiple request (for the result).
Asking multiple times for the result isn't old stuff ? I remmemeber that 10 - 15 years ago its was accepted but now ? I know that VirusTotal API use this kind of design.
There is a better solution ? one that will handle great loads and will be sync or async (returning result to the client once it done) ?
Thank you.
If you're using Azure, why not simply fire up more servers and use load balancing to handle more load? In that way, as your load increases, you have more servers to handle the requests.
Microsoft recently made available the Azure Service Fabric, which gives you a lot of control over spinning up and shutting down these services.
In my website, I'd like to create a public API that would allow clients (unknown people) to interact with my services. A classic REST API would work well in that case.
However, I need to be able to send events to the clients too. These events are not related to client HTTP requests. I saw "webhooks" are a way to deal with this. If I understood well, with webhooks, my service would send HTTP POST requests to a URL specified by the client, with event data inside this request.
I think websocket can be used too as a solution for this full-duplex communication need.
What I want to know, is which method would be the simplest for clients to implement to talk to my services? Simplicity is the key point here.
The hard thing is that my clients can use various technologies (full websites with HTTP servers, iOS/Android apps without server, etc.)
What are implications for clients if I use REST API + webhooks? Websockets? etc?
How to make a choice?
Hope it's clear (but not sure). Thanks :)
I would consider webhooks a simpler solution. And yes, you understood it well, that with webhooks, a developer using your API would register a URL where your backend would POST event data. It's a common pattern that's used in APIs.
A great benefit of using a webhooks design is that a client/server connection does not need to stay open. After all, if events occur infrequently (i.e. only a few times per hour, or per day) or keeping a consistent connection open is a challenge, establishing a connection only when it's needed is rather efficient.
The challenge of using webhooks for you, the API provider, is designing an evented backend system that deals with change of state detection and reliable webhook calling mechanisms (i.e. dealing with webhook receiver URLs that are unresponsive or throw errors).
The challenge of using webhooks on the developer end is that they need to stand up a reliable web server that listens for the event POST data from your server.
Realtime APIs (i.e. based on Websockets, Bayeux/CometD) are really swell because that live connection means that new connections do not have to be established, which is particularly useful with very chatty sessions. Additionally, there are a lot of projects and companies out there that have taken care of the heavy lifting on the server and client with fully-baked libraries. One of those is Fanout.io which makes pushing messages between the client/server possible with just a few lines of code, utilizing XMPP, Bayeux, and Websockets when possible.
(I am not affiliated with Fanout, but I have used it)
So, to sum it up, webhooks are simple mostly because you are already familiar with the architecture needed to implement them, and the pattern is a well traveled one. If you are leaning toward a persistent connection approach, I would look at tools/platforms like Fanout because it takes care of the heavy lifting (i.e. subscribe/publish, concurrent connection scale, client/server libraries).
I am trying to make a realtime messaging application. There will be 2 distinct server(node.js and django) and when a user sends message to another user message will be stored in database than node.js will send a message to receiver like "You have new Message!". For that i am planing to call url which node.js serve. So node.js and django will interact each other. And what is best way send message to specifig client ? (I keep clients with their id's in a assosicative array.)
what do you think about that? is it efficent or do you suggest better way to do this ?
Now that I understand more about what you're trying to do, here my answer, just keep in mind that this only reflects my opinion, and I bet that many others would argue about it.
It all matter on how much traffic you expect to have in your application. If it's not a high traffic application, then efficiency in run-time is insignificant when compared to that of the development, and so choose the technology you feel most comfortable with.
If though you do aim for high traffic application, then I believe that this setup is not a good one.
First of all while http based communication between servers might seem comfortable, you are dealing with the overhead of http over tcp (since http is based on tcp). And so regular tcp sockets scale better, but on the other hand if you write the sockets server in python than you can run it from the same process as the django and then just use it as an object from django (you're entering the realm of threads here). But that's problematic if you have a few web instances, again depends on how much traffic you expect.
As for your choice for implementing the messaging server, I've never tested node.js but I believe that in benchmark tests it won't compare for something written in erlang or Java NIO. For example: JAVA AIO (NIO.2) VS NODEJS
I'm developing a django-based MMO, and I'm wondering what would be the best way for server-client communication. The solutions I found are:
periodical AJAX calls
keeping a connection alive and sending data through it
Later edit:
This would consist in "you have a message", "user x attacked you", "your transport to x has arrived" and stuff like this. They could grow in number (something like 1/second), but for a typical user they shouldn't reach 1/minute
Not sure if it's applicable to what you're looking for, but there's a pretty good live example of lightweight server-client communication using node.js for a simple chat service:
http://chat.nodejs.org/
You might want to take a look at crossbar
Crossbar.io is an open-source server software that allows developers
to create distributed systems, composed of application components
which are loosely coupled, communicate in (soft) real-time and can be
implemented in different languages
There's also a third technique involving "hanging" queries:
Client requests an updated page (or whatever)
Server doesn't answer right away
Sometime before the request times out, there's a state update in the server, and the server finally answers the client, which can then update.
If there really is nothing new to tell the client within the update period, then the server responds before the timeout with a "no news" message, and the client starts up another "hanging" request.
Advantages:
Client doesn't have to do Ajax. You could even make regular HTML pages "interactive" like this.
Probably not quite as much senseless polling traffic.
Disadvantages:
Server needs to keep more active connections open, and service them at least once per timeout period. Also,
depending on how well the server code supports multi-threading (does PHP provide any help there?), it may be more difficult to code than AJAX response handling.