I've asked on the Play Framework forums, but figured I'd ask here as well for the additional coverage:
Using Play Framework 2.3, I have a WebSocket handled with an actor that I'm using to push "StatusUpdate" messages to connected clients:
def updateSocket = WebSocket.tryAcceptWithActor[StatusUpdate, StatusUpdate] {
implicit request =>
authorized(Set.empty[SecurityRole]).map {
case Right(user) =>
Right({upstream => DashboardListener.props(upstream, user.dblocations)})
case Left(_) =>
Left(Forbidden)
}
}
Everything is working wonderfully, except...
When a user connects via Internet Explorer, and the IE window loses focus, within 20 or so seconds the WebSocket forcibly closes. Firefox, so far, seems not to exhibit this behavior. I used Fiddler to inspect the WebSocket traffic, and it looks like IE is sending a "pong" message after it loses focus:
{"doneTime": "02:08:39.462","messageType": "Pong","messageID": "Client.2",
"wsSession":"WSSession-1","payload": "", "requestPartCount": "1"}
Immediately, the server sends:
{"doneTime": "02:08:39.462","messageType": "Close","messageID": "Server.3",
"wsSession": "WSSession-1","payload": "03-EB-54-68-69-73-20-57-65-62-53-6F-
63-6B-65-74-20-64-6F-65-73-20-6E-6F-74-20-68-61-6E-64-6C-65-20-66-72-61-6D-
65-73-20-6F-66-20-74-68-61-74-20-74-79-70-65", "requestPartCount": "1"}
I'm assuming that this is because my WebSocket doesn't know how to handle pongs (since I've declared incoming and outgoing traffic to be of the StatusUpdate type). Moreover, the client receives a closeEvent with code 1003 (The connection is being terminated because the endpoint received data of a type it cannot accept). I've done some research, and it seems that this ping/pong is supposed to keep the connection alive, but not be exposed to the API. Has anyone run into this before or know of a potential solution?
If it matters, the clients only receive StatusUpdates via this socket -- at no point is any sort of message ever explicitly sent on it. The StatusUpdate messages originate from elsewhere in my Actor system.
Related
I'm trying to create a server that sets up a Unix socket and listens for clients which send/receive data. I've made a small repository to recreate the problem.
The server runs and it can receive data from the clients that connect, but I can't get the server response to be read from the client without an error on the server.
I have commented out the offending code on the client and server. Uncomment both to recreate the problem.
When the code to respond to the client is uncommented, I get this error on the server:
thread '' panicked at 'called Result::unwrap() on an Err value: Os { code: 11, kind: WouldBlock, message: "Resource temporarily unavailable" }', src/main.rs:77:42
MRE Link
Your code calls set_read_timeout to set the timeout on the socket. Its documentation states that on Unix it results in a WouldBlock error in case of timeout, which is precisely what happens to you.
As to why your client times out, the likely reason is that the server calls stream.read_to_string(&mut response), which reads the stream until end-of-file. On the other hand, your client calls write_all() followed by flush(), and (after uncommenting the offending code) attempts to read the response. But the attempt to read the response means that the stream is not closed, so the server will wait for EOF, and you have a deadlock on your hands. Note that none of this is specific to Rust; you would have the exact same issue in C++ or Python.
To fix the issue, you need to use a protocol in your communication. A very simple protocol could consist of first sending the message size (in a fixed format, perhaps 4 bytes in length) and only then the actual message. The code that reads from the stream would do the same: first read the message size and then the message itself. Even better than inventing your own protocol would be to use an existing one, e.g. to exchange messages using serde.
When I get one message from a non akka client through TCP socket, I need to reply as three messages. In the following sample given below, only the first one goes through properly to the sender (the TCP client which is non AKKA). The rest of the two goes to dead letter. Any idea? Thanks in advance.
object TcpExample {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val system = ActorSystem("some-system")
val tcpConsumer = system.actorOf(Props[TcpConsumer])
}
class TcpConsumer extends Consumer {
def endpointUri = "mina2:tcp://localhost:6200?textline=true"
def receive = {
case msg: CamelMessage => {
sender ! msg.bodyAs[String]
sender ! msg.bodyAs[String] // This goes to dead letter
sender ! msg.bodyAs[String] // This goes to dead letter
}
case msg: Failure => sender ! msg
}
}
Without knowing too much about the internals of the akka/camel integration, let me try and demonstrate what's happening here. First, as I mentioned in my comment, the sender in your actor does not directly refer to the TCP client that is on the other side of the system. It's lower level than that; it's whatever ActorRef sent your Consumer the CamelMessage in the first place. So what actor is that? Let me try and explain what I think is happening.
When you set up tcp based a camel consumer, based on the endpointUri there will be a piece of code (from Camel) that is going to bind to the host and port from the endpointUri.
When a new connection request comes in (based on an external client opening a connection to that socket), some sort of actor is probably spun up to handle that individual connection. So there will be 1-n "connection handler" actor instances matching the number of open connections.
When a message comes inbound, it more than likely goes through that connection handler actor. From there, it is either being sent to your consumer via ask (?), or another short lived actor is being spun up to handle that individual message.
Either way, next stop is your consumer, where it's receive function gets hit with a CamelMessage representing the payload from the message sent from the remove client. When this happens, the actors sender is still whatever sent the message in step 3.
Your consumer will now send a message back to the sender and then from there it will eventually be routed back to the connection handler for that connection. In there, it will write back to the socket, in a conversational state. One message in, one message out.
I think your problem is that you are breaking the "one in, one out" paradigm here. When you get your CamelMessage, you are only supposed to respond to that message once, which will evantually trickle back up to the TCP client on the other end of the socket. I don't think the framework expects another response, and that's why you see deadletters for the other two responses.
So this begs the question, what scenario do you have that requires a "1 in, 3 out" paradigm vs the expected "1 in, one out" one that the framework seems to expect?
Is it possible to implement the equivalent of Socket.Poll in async/await paradigm (or BeginXXX/EndXXX async pattern)?
A method which would act like NetworkStream.ReadAsync or Socket.BeginReceive but:
leave the data in the socket buffer
complete after the specified interval of time if no data arrived (leaving the socket in connected state so that the polling operation can be retried)
I need to implement IMAP IDLE so that the client connects to the mail server and then goes into waiting state where it received data from the server. If the server does not send anything within 10 minutes, the code sends ping to the server (without reconnecting, the connection is never closed), and starts waiting for data again.
In my tests, leaving the data in the buffer seems to be possible if I tell Socket.BeginReceive method to read no more than 0 bytes, e.g.:
sock.BeginReceive(b, 0, 0, SocketFlags.None, null, null)
However, not sure if it indeed will work in all cases, maybe I'm missing something. For instance, if the remote server closes the connection, it may send a zero-byte packet and not sure if Socket.BeginReceive will act identically to Socket.Poll in this case or not.
And the main problem is how to stop socket.BeginReceive without closing the socket.
streaming data out of play, is quite easy.
here's a quick example of how I intend to do it (please let me know if i'm doing it wrong):
def getRandomStream = Action { implicit req =>
import scala.util.Random
import scala.concurrent.{blocking, ExecutionContext}
import ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
def getSomeRandomFutures: List[Future[String]] = {
for {
i <- (1 to 10).toList
r = Random.nextInt(30000)
} yield Future {
blocking {
Thread.sleep(r)
}
s"after $r ms. index: $i.\n"
}
}
val enumerator = Concurrent.unicast[Array[Byte]] {
(channel: Concurrent.Channel[Array[Byte]]) => {
getSomeRandomFutures.foreach {
_.onComplete {
case Success(x: String) => channel.push(x.getBytes("utf-8"))
case Failure(t) => channel.push(t.getMessage)
}
}
//following future will close the connection
Future {
blocking {
Thread.sleep(30000)
}
}.onComplete {
case Success(_) => channel.eofAndEnd()
case Failure(t) => channel.end(t)
}
}
}
new Status(200).chunked(enumerator).as("text/plain;charset=UTF-8")
}
now, if you get served by this action, you'll get something like:
after 1757 ms. index: 10.
after 3772 ms. index: 3.
after 4282 ms. index: 6.
after 4788 ms. index: 8.
after 10842 ms. index: 7.
after 12225 ms. index: 4.
after 14085 ms. index: 9.
after 17110 ms. index: 1.
after 21213 ms. index: 2.
after 21516 ms. index: 5.
where every line is received after the random time has passed.
now, imagine I want to preserve this simple example when streaming data from the server to the client, but I also want to support full streaming of data from the client to the server.
So, lets say i'm implementing a new BodyParser that parses the input into a List[Future[String]]. this means, that now, my Action could look like something like this:
def getParsedStream = Action(myBodyParser) { implicit req =>
val xs: List[Future[String]] = req.body
val enumerator = Concurrent.unicast[Array[Byte]] {
(channel: Concurrent.Channel[Array[Byte]]) => {
xs.foreach {
_.onComplete {
case Success(x: String) => channel.push(x.getBytes("utf-8"))
case Failure(t) => channel.push(t.getMessage)
}
}
//again, following future will close the connection
Future.sequence(xs).onComplete {
case Success(_) => channel.eofAndEnd()
case Failure(t) => channel.end(t)
}
}
}
new Status(200).chunked(enumerator).as("text/plain;charset=UTF-8")
}
but this is still not what I wanted to achieve. in this case, I’ll get the body from the request only after the request was finished, and all the data was uploaded to the server. but I want to start serving request as I go. a simple demonstration, would be to echo any received line back to the user, while keeping the connection alive.
so here's my current thoughts:
what if my BodyParser would return an Enumerator[String] instead of List[Future[String]]?
in this case, I could simply do the following:
def getParsedStream = Action(myBodyParser) { implicit req =>
new Status(200).chunked(req.body).as("text/plain;charset=UTF-8")
}
so now, i'm facing the problem of how to implement such a BodyParser.
being more precise as to what exactly I need, well:
I need to receive chunks of data to parse as a string, where every string ends in a newline \n (may contain multiple lines though...). every "chunk of lines" would be processed by some (irrelevant to this question) computation, which would yield a String, or better, a Future[String], since this computation may take some time. the resulted strings of this computation, should be sent to the user as they are ready, much like the random example above. and this should happen simultaneously while more data is being sent.
I have looked into several resources trying to achieve it, but was unsuccessful so far.
e.g. scalaQuery play iteratees -> it seems like this guy is doing something similar to what I want to do, but I couldn't translate it into a usable example. (and the differences from play2.0 to play2.2 API doesn't help...)
So, to sum it up: Is this the right approach (considering I don't want to use WebSockets)? and if so, how do I implement such a BodyParser?
EDIT:
I have just stumble upon a note on the play documentation regarding this issue, saying:
Note: It is also possible to achieve the same kind of live
communication the other way around by using an infinite HTTP request
handled by a custom BodyParser that receives chunks of input data, but
that is far more complicated.
so, i'm not giving up, now that I know for sure this is achievable.
What you want to do isn't quite possible in Play.
The problem is that Play can't start sending a response until it has completely received the request. So you can either receive the request in its entirety and then send a response, as you have been doing, or you can process requests as you receive them (in a custom BodyParser), but you still can't reply until you've received the request in its entirety (which is what the note in the documentation was alluding to - although you can send a response in a different connection).
To see why, note that an Action is fundamentally a (RequestHeader) => Iteratee[Array[Byte], SimpleResult]. At any time, an Iteratee is in one of three states - Done, Cont, or Error. It can only accept more data if it's in the Cont state, but it can only return a value when it's in the Done state. Since that return value is a SimpleResult (i.e, our response), this means there's a hard cut off from receiving data to sending data.
According to this answer, the HTTP standard does allow a response before the request is complete, but most browsers don't honor the spec, and in any case Play doesn't support it, as explained above.
The simplest way to implement full-duplex communication in Play is with WebSockets, but we've ruled that out. If server resource usage is the main reason for the change, you could try parsing your data with play.api.mvc.BodyParsers.parse.temporaryFile, which will save the data to a temporary file, or play.api.mvc.BodyParsers.parse.rawBuffer, which will overflow to a temporary file if the request is too large.
Otherwise, I can't see a sane way to do this using Play, so you may want to look at using another web server.
"Streaming data in and out simultaneously on a single HTTP connection in play"
I haven't finished reading all of your question, nor the code, but what you're asking to do isn't available in HTTP. That has nothing to do with Play.
When you make a web request, you open a socket to a web server and send "GET /file.html HTTP/1.1\n[optional headers]\n[more headers]\n\n"
You get a response after (and only after) you have completed your request (optionally including a request body as part of the request). When and only when the request and response are finished, in HTTP 1.1 (but not 1.0) you can make a new request on the same socket (in http 1.0 you open a new socket).
It's possible for the response to "hang" ... this is how web chats work. The server just sits there, hanging onto the open socket, not sending a response until someone sends you a message. The persistent connection to the web server eventually provides a response when/if you receive a chat message.
Similarly, the request can "hang." You can start to send your request data to the server, wait a bit, and then complete the request when you receive additional user input. This mechanism provides better performance than continually creating new http requests on each user input. A server can interpret this stream of data as a stream of distinct inputs, even though that wasn't necessarily the initial intention of the HTTP spec.
HTTP does not support a mechanism to receive part of a request, then send part of a response, then receive more of a request. It's just not in the spec. Once you've begun to receive a response, the only way to send additional information to the server is to use another HTTP request. You can use one that's already open in parallel, or you can open a new one, or you can complete the first request/response and issue an additional request on the same socket (in 1.1).
If you must have asynchronous io on a single socket connection, you might want to consider a different protocol other than HTTP.
I've been having some problems with the below code that I've pieced together. All the events work as advertised however, when a client drops off-line without first disconnecting the close event doesn't get call right away. If you give it a minute or so it will eventually get called. Also, I find if I continue to send data to the client it picks up a close event faster but never right away. Lastly, if the client gracefully disconnects, the end event is called just fine.
I understand this is related to the other listen events like upgrade and ondata.
I should also state that the client is an embedded device.
client http request:
GET /demo HTTP/1.1\r\n
Host: example.com\r\n
Upgrade: Websocket\r\n
Connection: Upgrade\r\n\r\n
//nodejs server (I'm using version 6.6)
var http = require('http');
var net = require('net');
var sys = require("util");
var srv = http.createServer(function (req, res){
});
srv.on('upgrade', function(req, socket, upgradeHead) {
socket.write('HTTP/1.1 101 Web Socket Protocol Handshake\r\n' +
'Upgrade: WebSocket\r\n' +
'Connection: Upgrade\r\n' +
'\r\n\r\n');
sys.puts('upgraded');
socket.ondata = function(data, start, end) {
socket.write(data.toString('utf8', start, end), 'utf8'); // echo back
};
socket.addListener('end', function () {
sys.puts('end'); //works fine
});
socket.addListener('close', function () {
sys.puts('close'); //eventually gets here
});
});
srv.listen(3400);
Can anyone suggest a solution to pickup an immediate close event? I am trying to keep this simple without use of modules. Thanks in advance.
close event will be called once TCP socket connection is closed by one or another end with few complications of rare cases when system "not realising" that socket been already closed, but this are rare cases. As WebSockets start from HTTP request server might just keep-alive till it timeouts the socket. That involves the delay.
In your case you are trying to perform handshake and then send data back and forth, but WebSockets are a bit more complex process than that.
The handshake process requires some security procedure to validate both ends (server and client) and it is HTTP compatible headers. But different draft versions supported by different platforms and browsers do implement it in a different manner so your implementation should take this in account as well and follow official documentation on WebSockets specification based on versions you need to support.
Then sending and receiving data via WebSockets is not pure string. Actual data sent over WebSockets protocol has data-framing layer, which involves adding header to each message you send. This header has details over message you sending, masking (from client to server), length and many other things. data-framing depends on version of WebSockets again, so implementations will vary slightly.
I would encourage to use existing libraries as they already implement everything you need in nice and clean manner, and have been used extensively across commercial projects.
As your client is embedded platform, and server I assume is node.js as well, it is easy to use same library on both ends.
Best suit here would be ws - actual pure WebSockets.
Socket.IO is not good for your case, as it is much more complex and heavy library that has multiple list of protocols support with fallbacks and have some abstraction that might be not what you are looking for.