Let's assume there are a several clients that must receive updated data from server. They connect to server and communicate using Server Sent Event push.
How SSE knows that concrete message should be addressed to concrete client like it works in sockets?
Does it support broadcast or private messages?
How SSE knows that concrete message should be addressed to concrete client like it works in sockets?
The client connects to an URL on the server. You can optionally add query parameters to the URL that can be used for logic.
Since the client have initiated the connection, the server must all the time hold a "handle" to this connection, so it can use it to send data. In this way, it is similar to sockets.
Does it support broadcast or private messages?
The server must iterate over all connection handles to send data to all clients. It can send data to only some clients, similar to private messages. How the connections is handled is up to the server.
Related
I'm trying to build a entirely contained trading simulator using quickfix/J. The systems ought to consist of 2 client applications (a market/exchange and a broker) as well as a router (server/acceptor). In particular I'd like to know:
Client-Client communication
How the two clients can communicate to each other, but the server handling all the messaging logic, ie. messages should go through server and it should decide where and how to forward messages. I ought to be able to pass a targetID in FIX message, and the server app should handle routing to desired client.
Multiple clients on same port
Have multiple clients connected on same port but messages should only go to a particular sender comp Id ie. clients should not be privy of communication from other clients.
I've already set up the acceptor, and 2 clients. I know I could do this programmaticaly using plain old Java but I'd like to leverage the quickfix library and would like a relativly out of the box solution.
MVP: client (broker) sends fix message through the acceptor(router), message is processed and forwarded to a particular market, market recieves message through server and does some business logic, market sends fix message back to client through acceptor.
ps: I like the quickfix library but I'm very flexible if there any other library/languages you'd recommend
Short answer: QuickFIX/J (as far as I can tell similarly QuickFIX or quickfix/n) will not route messages based on tags. This has to be implemented in your application code.
Edit: with regard to your second point. There is no problem having your FIX server listening for multiple FIX connections on the same port (This applies for QuickFIX/J and I guess also the other language variants.) Sessions are addressed via the SessionID so it is ensured that only the correct FIX Session gets its messages.
I need to do the following:
multiple clients connecting to the SAME remote port
each of the clients open 2 different sockets, one is a PUB/SUB, the
other is a ROUTER/DEALER ( the server can occasionally send back to client heartbeats, different server related information ).
I am completely lost whether it can be done in ZeroMQ or not.
Obviously if I can use 2 remote ports, that is not an issue, but I fail
to understand if my setup can be achieved with some kind of envelope
usage in ZeroMQ.
Can it be done?
Thanks,
Update:
To clarify what I wish to achieve.
Multiple clients can communicate with the server
Clients operate on request-response basis mostly(on one socket)
Clients create a session socket, which means that whenever this
type of socket is created, a separate worker thread needs to be created
and from that time on the client communicates with this worker thread
with regards to requests processing, e.g. server thread must not block
the connection of other clients when dealing with the request of one client
However clients can receive occasional messages from the worker thread with regards to heartbeats of the worker.
Update2:
Actually I could sort it out. What I did:
identify clients obviously, so ROUTER/DEALER is used, e.g. clients
are indeed dealers, hence async processing is provided
clients send messages to the one and only local port, where the router sits
router peeks into messages (kinda the lazy pirate example), checks whether a new client comes in; if yes it offloads to a separate thread, and connects the separate thread with an internal "inproc:" socket
router obviously polls for the frontend and all connected clients' backends and sends messages back and forth.
What bugs me is that it is an overkill if I compare this with a "regular" socket solution, where I could have connected the client with the worker thread DIRECTLY (e.g. worker thread could recv from the socket opened by the client directly), hence I could spare the routing completely.
What am I missing?
There was a discussion on the ZeroMQ mailing list recently about multiplexing multiple services on one TCP socket. The proposed solutions is essentially what you implemented.
The discussion also mentions Malamute with its brokers which essentially provides a framework based on ZeroMQ which also provides the functionality you need. I haven't had the time to look into it myself, but it looks promising.
I have a client and a server application that is communicating just fine, there is a TIdCmdTCPServer in the server and a TIdTCPClient in the client.
The client has to authenticate in the server, the client asks the server for the newest version information and downloads any updates, and other communications. All this communication with TIdTCPClient.SendCmd() and TIdTCPClient.LastCmdResult.Text.Text.
The way it is, the server receives commands and replies, the clients only receives replies, never commands, and I would like to implement a way to make the client receives commands. But as I heard, if the client uses SendCmd it should never be listening for data like ReadLn() as it would interfere with the reply expected in SendCmd.
I thought of making a command to check for commands, for example, the client would send a command like "IsThereCommandForMe" and the server would have a pool of commands to each client and when the client asks, the server send it in the reply, but I think it would not be a good approach as there would be a big delay between the commands being available and the client asking for it. I also thought of making a new connection with new components, for example a TIdCmdTcpClient, but then there would be 2 connections for each client, I don't like that idea as I think it could easily give problems in the communication.
The reason I want this, is that I want to implement a chat functionality in the client, and it should be receiving messages from the server without asking for it all the time, imagine all clients continually asking the server if there is message for them. And I would like to be able to inform the client when there is an update available instead the client being asking if there is any. And with this I could send more commands to the client too.
what are your thoughts about this ? how can I make the server receiving commands from the clients, but also sends them ?
TCP sockets are bidirectional by design. Once the connection between 'client' and 'server' has been established, they are symmetric and data can be sent at any time from any side over the same socket.
It only depends on the protocol (which is just written 'contract' for the communication) which communication model is used. HTTP for example uses a request/reply model. With Telnet for example, both sides can initate data transmissions. (If you take a look at the Indy implementation for Telnet, you will see that it uses a background thread to listen for server data, but it uses the same socket connection in the main thread to send data from client to server).
A "full duplex" protocol which supports both request/response and server push, and also is firewall-friendly, is WebSockets. With WebSockets (a HTTP upgrade), the server can send data to the connected client(s) any time. This would meet your 'chat' requirement.
If you use TIdTCPClient / TIdCmdTCPServer, corporate firewalls might block the communication.
Helo, I'm working on a mobile game which needs realtime communication from client to server.
Usually I'll implement a TCP socket server and use some private binary protocol to enable bidirectional communication, and now I also looking into XMPP server like Ejabberd which is based on standard. But XML in some way it's really redundant and inefficient, especially for mobile app it could means more traffic and memory consumption.
Is it a MUST that XMPP use XML?
Is there any XMPP implementation that uses binary as low level data format instead of using XML? (or I shouldn't choose XMPP and start with other standard or technology.)
Any strategy to reduce overhead of sending complex data object (not big file object) using XMPP?
XML is required by the XMPP specification, so there are no binary implementations. It does indeed contain much more overhead, but you have to keep in mind the problem XMPP is designed to solve - an active chat connection can be expected to transmit maybe one message per second.
As for the Google talk api: they use a non-xml protocol for client - Google server connections. When I send a message in the Gmail client, the request body just contains a bunch of post data:
count=1&ofs=16&req0_type=m&req0_to=my.friend%40gmail.com&req0_id=6A8466CBC59CBB0C_0&req0_text=test&req0_chatstate=active&req0_iconset=classic&req0__sc=c
That part is not XMPP. The server which accepts this request then does the job of creating and sending out the XMPP requests. The XMPP is still in XML, they just use a different protocol between the client and Google server.
(newbie alert)
I need to program a multiparty communication service for a course project, and I am considering XMPP for it.
The service needs following messaging semantics:
1) server will provide a method of registering and unregistering an address such as somenode#myservice.com/SomeResource. (for now I will do it manually).
2) server will provide a method of forwarding incoming messages from, say, somenode#myservice.com/SomeResource to someothernode#myservice.com/someOtherResource, assuming that the latter is registered, and a method for removing this forwarding. (for now I will do it manually).
3) anonymous clients can send messages to, say, somenode#myservice.com/someresource (one way traffic only). If there is any forwarding setup, the message will be forwarded. Finally if the address is somenode#myservice.com/someresource is registered, the message will be stored for later delivery (or immediate if a retrieving client is online - see below). If no forwarding and unregistered, message will be silently dropped.
4) clients can connect and retrieve messages from a registered address. Exact method of authenticating clients (e.g., passwords?) is yet to be determined.
Eventually, I want to add support for clients to connect from a web browser so they can register/unregister and set/remove forwarding themselves.
Thus, the server will have to do some non-standard switching. Will I need to implement an XMPP server for this? I guess some (or all?) of this can also be done using a XMPP client bot
You might investigate whether Pub/Sub is a better fit for your problem than custom messaging semantics. If so, you may find an implementation of it in your existing XMPP server.
You could probably get away with using a message queue like ActiveMQ for the communication and Apache Camel for the routing/forwarding/processing.