I implemented an UWP Server Socket following the sample here and it correctly works.
Now I want to make the app able to continuously accept requests, but I expect that when the app is suspendeded and a client sends a request, the server is not able to respond. If I am correct, what is the best way to avoid this status change? If possible, I would prefer a solution with Extended Execution instead of implementing a Background Task, but I don't know if the following code in the OnSuspending method is enough to keep the app in the Running status:
var newSession = new ExtendedExecutionSession();
newSession.Reason = ExtendedExecutionReason.Unspecified;
newSession.Revoked += SessionRevoked;
I saw people calling a "LongRunningWork()" function in other samples, but in my case the code to execute is already defined in the code-behind of the view as shown in the link above, so I would like simply keeping the app always running. Keep in mind that it is a LOB application, so I don't have Store limits.
Related
I have an application (Laravel + MongoDB running on Nginx) where I pull some data from the database and render it on the screen. The application focusses on multiple real life objects. Once an object is turned on (is_on equals to true in the database), the timer on the screen needs to start ticking. Once the object is turned off (is_on equals to false in the database) the clock stops ticking and resets to 0. The format of the clock is HH:MM:SS. So it shows how long the real life object is turned on.
My problem is that I don't really now how to save/implement such timer. When the user request the page, I pull the necessary data from the database. If I also save the timer in the database, you have to make a query every second which is very bad practice.
I remembered something about WebSockets and tried to look into them. I actually managed to build a basic Hello World chat application, but don't really know how to implement this in my project. There is no place for it in the database (because of the queries), so I don't really know where to save that timer on the server. I'm also doubting if WebSockets are the way to go.
So are WebSockets the way to go and if it is, can you guys point me in the right direction on how to implement this? If not, can you advise me what I should do?
Thanks in advance!
From your question:
I understand that the objects you print in the screen are modified by
users in the application, and your aim is to live forward those
modifications to other active client instances of your application.
In that case, as you mention, I would point you to websockets. They are a great way to feed information directly to the client, so the client receives the update signals and modify the interface, with no need of user action.
In order to implement the logic to notify the client, I recommend using a push approach, but this is really depending on what kind of clients you'd like to notify, since the push world is still a bit tricky.
Further readings for this websocket based push implementation:
Question about Push Flags:
Difference between push and urgent flags in TCP
If your client runs in browser or mobile this question is nice to read:
How to send push notification to web browser?
Also html5 websockets:
http://www.websocket.org/aboutwebsocket.html
As a sidenote:
A nice architecture for client-server live communication is based on node.js together with socket.io library offering good performance and not really complex implementation if you know what you do.
I'm very new to Node.JS and asynchronous programming and have a challenging question. I want to fork a process from Node and then shoot that output back to the browser with Websockets, specifically the Sockets.io library. What is the best and most robust way to handle this?
The data isn't mission critical, it's just for updating the user on status. So if they leave the page, the socket can close and the child process can continue to run. It'd also be neat if there was some way to access the socket via a specific URL in Express and come back to it later (but that may be another days work).
Use the Redis Store support of socket.io:
var RedisStore = require('socket.io').RedisStore;
var io = require('socket.io').listen(app);
io.set('store', new RedisStore());
The socket.io library use redis server to storage the data and the events.
I just got asked to reduce the traffic made by my GWT app. There is one method that checks for status.
This method is an asynchronous call wrapped in a Timer. I know web apps are stateless and all that, but I do wonder if there is some other way to do this, or if everyone has a Timer wrapped around a call when they need this kind of behaviour.
You can check out gwteventservice. It claims to have a way to push server events and notify the client.
I have a feeling they might be implemented as long running (hanging) client to server RPC calls which time out after an interval (say 20sec), and then are re-made. The server returns the callback if an event happens in the meanwhile.
I haven't used it personally but know of people using it to push events to the client. Have a look at the docs . If my assumption is correct, the idea is to send an RPC call to the server which does not return (hangs). If an event happens on the server, the server responds and that RPC call returns with the event. If there is no event, the call will time out in 20 seconds. Then a new call is made to the server which hangs in the same way until there is an event.
What this achieves is that it reduces the number of calls to the server to either one for each event (if there is one), or a call once every 20 seconds (if there isn't one). It looks like the 20 sec interval can be configured.
I imagine that if there is no event the amount of data sent back will be minimal - it might be possible to cancel the callback entirely, or have it fail without data transfer, but I don't really know.
Here is another resource on ServerPush - which is likely what's implemented by gwteventservice.
Running on Google app engine you could use they Channel technology
http://code.google.com/intl/en-US/appengine/docs/java/channel/overview.html
If you need the client to get the status from the server, then you pretty much have to make a call to the server to get it's status.
You could look at reducing the size of some of your messages
You could wind back the timer so the status call goes out less often
You could "optimise" so that the timer gets reset when some other client/server IO happens (i.e. if the server replies you know it is ok, so you don't need to send the next status request).
I have an application in Asp.net MVC where at some point I would like to display a modal dialog to the user that would display process execution progress indicator.
The process behind the scenes does a lot of database data processing (based on existing data it generates lots of resulting records that get written back to database as well). Process may take anything from a brief moment to a very long time (depending on existing data).
Application will initiate this process asynchronously (via Ajax request) and display progress in the same manner.
The problem
I've read a bit about Async controllers where one can asynchronously start a process and will informed about the end of it but there's no progress indication and I'm not really sure how browser timeouts are handled. As far as the client goes an async request is the same as synchronous one. Client will therefore wait for response (as I understand it). the main difference being that server will execute something in async manner so it won't block other incoming requests. What I should actually do is:
make a request that would start the process and respond to the client taht process has started.
client would them periodically poll the server for process progress status getting immediate response back with percentage value (probably as JSON)
when progress would be 100% it would mean that it ended so client would know to make a request for results.
I'm not convinced that async controllers work this way...
The thing is that I'm not really sure I understand async controllers hence am not sure which approach should I use approach this problem as just described? I see two possibilities myself:
Asp.net MVC Async controllers if they can work this way
Windows Service app that processes data on request and reports its progress - this service would be started by writing a particular record to DB using a normal controller action; that would start it and then service would be writing its progress status to DB so my Asp.net MVC app would be able to read it on client process polling requests.
I haven't used Asynch controllers myself in a project. However here's a link to someone who has.
asynchronous-processing-in-asp-net-mvc-with-ajax-progress-bar
I have personally used Number 2 in a large production project.
Number 2 was a Service App running on a separate server using OpenSSH to communicate between the two servers. We'd poll for progress periodically to update the progress bar to the clients UI via AJAX.
Additionally by separating your web server from your long running process you are separating your concerns. You web server is not interested in writing files to disk, handling IO, etc and so shouldn't be burdended with such.
If your long running process has to be killed or fails then this wont affect your web server handling requests, and processing transactions.
Another suggestion would be for an extremely long running process is not to burden the client with waiting, give them an option to come back later to see the progress. I.e. send them an e-mail when its done.
Or actually show them something interesting, in our case we had a signed Java Applet show exactly what their process is doing at that exact moment.
I am a little confused on how to go about and do this....
On each page of my app i connect to PHP file to drag in data from my server. I have about 10 pages. Now if there is no connection to the internet then of course now data can be received.
Often the app crashes and we are putting this down to not having the data due to a change in connection or wifi whatever.
Now i have setup the reachability thing and that works, but i dont know how to link this in with the PHP calls. Should i check the reachability and if no connection then dont run the call. If so, what about all the variables, they will still be null and cause an error then?
I dont really know what is the best solution.
Hope you can help
Alex
Are the php calls just to receive data from a database without using a built in DB framework such as SQLite? If so, I went the same route to avoid the headache at first, but running SQLite in your app is a better solution overall, and reduces multiple dependencies (such as internet connection).
Now if the php calls that give you data back are receiving this information from yet another source and then feeding it into its own DB.....
Should i check the reachability and if no connection then dont run the call
Yes you should. This is done in multiple apps already. What variables would be null in this case? Pop the code that makes the call in an "if" block below this check, and only run it if true. Error handling other variables that might be null because the php call isn't setting them is up to you. You can do this is multiple ways.
You should certainly cache the data so the App doesn't HAVE to connect to the internet to display something, other than that I would make sure to use asynchronous requests and the timeout feature of NSURLRequest to control your attempts to request data in the background. If you don't get the data, just keep using what you have cached.