I'm in the process of deciding how to write an online auction application. I would like to provide real-time updates to the site users. My background is with LAMP (although, in my case, the 'P' would be more for Perl than PHP). I've considered ActiveMQ, but I'm wondering if there are better options.
My primary concerns are scalability and speed. It could have several simultaneous auctions taking place, with [hopefully] many users participating in each auction. Whatever solution that I decide on would have to accommodate such a scenario. Of course, this is all in theory so I have no idea how many concurrent users that I might have, but I'd like to have the means to support tens of thousands of users.
Another concern is ease of implementation. I've spent the past few days reading docs and tutorials and, so far, nothing has come across as anything less than a bit of a pain in the rear to deal with, which is actually what has led me here to seek some advice.
I was hoping to use a web framework, such as Codeigniter (PHP) or Catalyst (Perl), because I intend to pay a contractor or two to help with some of the bulk of the coding, and I like the idea of having a framework to somewhat enforce a design pattern. However, the more that I look into this, I'm just not seeing an obvious solution to 1) use a framework, and 2) provide real-time auction updates (other than Tornado, I guess - maybe I'm answering my own question. ;)).
So, with all that said, short of using polling (which I'm not really interested in doing), is there a way that I can accomplish these real-time updates using a language like Perl or PHP for my server-side code? I know that ActiveMQ supports STOMP, and I actually have this working on my local machine (using Jetty since it requires a servlet to publish/consume messages from client-side javascript), but is there a better option here?
I'm sorry that I don't have a more direct question, but after several days of looking at docs and tutorials, I'm more lost than ever!
Part of your problem is that your mixing a variety of concepts together. If I read things correctly you have a problem statement of:
I'm building an online auction site and would like to insure that my visitors have real-time updates of prices on the items they are viewing.
Now between the Browser and the Server you'll probably use a Comet style request pattern to handle communications, you could also look at socket.io as a backup pattern. This polling will require a server that is able to handle lots of simultaneous open connections, which Tornado is a good candidate (there are others, but given you asked in relationship to Tornado it's good).
Now that we've gone from 1000+ of Browsers to a handful of Tornado servers, you need a way to communicate between them. In the the last of publish/subscribe message patterns you have a few choices:
RabbitMQ (AMQP)
ZeroMQ
Redis Pub/Sub
All three a good choices, with their own pros/cons. Personally I've used Redis and Rabbit on different projects and just toyed with ZeroMQ. The message broker is a whole decision tree that is going to be based on what you have available.
Related
I am fairly new to building applications using the RESTful architecture. As a matter of fact, all I have done so far is categorized as Level 2 REST by Leonard Richardson and that I know Fielding would happily categorize as Non-RESTful.
I have spent hours trying to understand HATEOAS and how to reach level 4. And I see it more clearly now. I conceptualize the application as a series of state transitions, and the resources will dynamically provide links with information on how to move from one state to another.
But everything related to HATEOAS seem to be inherent of a human-computer interaction. I mean, even when the resources provide the links that enable the application user to move to the next state, it is ultimately the user the one that drives the application from one state to the other by causing the use of of the provided links.
But how are things supposed to work when we are dealing with computer-to-computer interaction? After all when it comes to service-orientation the idea of service composition is key, and we cannot naively assume that the client is always going to be a human being? Many services are designed to be consumed by non-human users, and some interactions/orchestrations might be fairly complex, the type of things that are typically modeled with things like BPM, or BPEL.
Is REST and particularly HATEOAS only usable in applications that imply human intervention and if not how is this supposed to work otherwise?
I am getting this vibe that REST is only good for certain type of solutions and inadequate for others, but literature out there has failed to explain those inadequacies and sell REST as the cure of all evil, but I just don't quite get how to use for proper service composition when humans are not the drivers.
I'd really appreciate any references or insights on this, because believe me I have two days straight reading all I have been able to find on this topic and I have not yet being able to reach any reasonable and well documented conclusions.
Well, your client app can parse the response to get possible actions. In this case actual urls are obtained not from knowledge of the API, but upon calling the initial method (usually GET). All human-less.
It sounds almost as if you're comparing SOA to REST/Hypermedia and fail to see that SOA is a strategy, for designing a complex system made out of other systems, while REST/Hypermedia is a software architecture style applying a bunch of constraints on client-server communication. The client, however, can be both a server or a human, it doesn't matter.
To use or not to use REST/Hypermedia is not something to bother with when outlining/designing service composition. It's a question that comes into play when trying to achieve syntactic interoperability. Many times it comes down to comparing REST to Soap and other technical details.
I am currently doing my research on building a chat system with more than 10k users connected online. I came across technologies and ways to do it such as jabber(XMPP), websockets, long polling, push. As far as I now, long polling might not work given the number of users. I know there is a lot of ways to accomplish this. I also know that facebook and Google chat systems are developed on XMPP.
I would truly appreciate if anyone could point me to the right direction. I believe all these methods and technologies out there are good depending on the scale of the project. I definitely need performance and scalability.
I've used Socket.io together with NodeJS for such a chat application. It scaled to over 10K concurrent users on moderate servers and there was a lot of room to grow.
This does depend on your limitations, tho.
What kind of hardware are you planning on using?
Which operating system would power your servers?
Which client platforms are you targeting?
Do you have an existing infrastructure you need to fit this into?
Do you have a previously selected programming language?
The existing skill sets your team members have and your team's ability to adopt new platforms and languages if necessary.
Take all of the above into consideration when making your decision.
Personally, I've found XMPP to be quite adequate, but a bit bloated for my purposes. YMMV.
You are comparing a fruit basket and three different variety of oranges.
XMPP is the only protocol that you have mentioned that actually is designed to support a chat system (of which many exist). The others are simply asynchronous messaging protocols/techniques. XMPP already supports http based chat via BOSH. Without a doubt, it will also support WebSockets when the specification is finalized. There is actually a draft of this already written, but at this point it appears to be a draft using a draft, so there will probably be few, if any, implementations.
Using XMPP would allow you to build on a proven technology for implementing a chat system and would allow you to choose what transport you want to use "under the hood". You haven't actually said whether you need a http based transport or not, but with XMPP you can use the stock tcp socket based transport or a http based one (BOSH) with the knowledge that it will also support WebSockets in the future.
The other benefit is of course that this is a widely used standard that will allow reuse of existing clients, servers and libraries in pretty much all popular (and not so popular) languages and platforms.
Scalability is not too much of a concern with the numbers you are quoting, as most (maybe all) existing xmpp servers will handle that many users.
Im currently working on an iphone app project. The app is based on a simple chat function between 2 or more people who have registered to the app. Iv outsourced the project. The developers working on the project would like to use Smartfox servers for the Client and Server side communication. They said its easier to manage and setup and is more efficient.
However Im not sure what the disadvantages are of using the Smartfox framework and whether I should just ask them to develop/code the client and server communication rather than using this framework.
Please let me have your suggestions on this issue.
Thank you
The usual response is: it depends on your budget, your time and needs.
If you just want to make a chat without advanced features, you may make it yourself. I tell "may" because if already made solutions exist why reinvented the wheel?! (except for the price).
However if you envisage to have a lot of users, some cool features or other you should consider a third solution (like Smartfoxserver, Electroserver, or other). They provide robust solutions with a good documentation. Moreover they offered a tons of features, new one appear regularly, there are updated, etc. Below a small non-exhaustive list of pros and cons of using Smartfox rather than a homemade solution, in my opinion:
Advantages compared with a homemade solution:
Gain time
Robust solution
Performance
Multi-platform
Scalability (in time and concurrent users)
Deployment
Network engine fully functional (TCP/UDP, HTTP Tunneling, etc.)
Low learning curve
Low maintenance costs
Tons of features (in your case Buddy Lists, Moderation, Filters, etc.)
etc.
Disadvantages:
Price (for > 100 CCU) (it takes a long time to develop a homemade solution though + maintenance cost)
Many features that you will not use
I hope it'll help you in your reflection.
I was today trying to figure out on working with WebService and found many articles really gospel over the Web Service and its effectiveness in the Market share.
My Questions are:
For a Complex project of critical data, is it better to opt for WebService?
What Makes WebService different from other way of fetching the data?
The answer is... it depends. Web services are not really the next Big thing, they have been a Huge Thing for years now. In business applications, web services allow a big level of interoperability and capabilities never seen before.
They help integration with legacy systems, cooperation between distinct departments, defining loosely coupled interfaces and such. You should read some about Service-oriented architecture.
If all you need is a PHP application that handles data from a single database, you might not need web services at all. If you are designing a solution that revolves around multiple data sources, with complex security involved, multiple languages and/or multiple applications, then web services become essential.
SOAP is a protocol; if working with PHP, you'll need to check out the PHP: SOAP guide to understand how it works. For every language (almost), there are existing APIs to develop web services. Anyhow you might want to check RESTful web services instead of SOAP-based ones, they are generally simpler to implement/understand. But that's another debate ;-).
Cheers.
That mostly depends on the definition of "big thing".
My experience with the WS stack and SOAP and all the acronym soup is that it takes an awful lot of workforce to deploy it. The status of the frameworks is complex, and definitely not something a hobbyist can put to work in a couple of afternoons. We have seen how many things on the net became the next big thing just because they were easy. Easy to understand, easy to interact with, easy in technology. Wikipedia, twitter, digg, youtube are internet big things, and they are, from the interaction point of view, light years away from SOAP/WS based interaction. They are KISS: simple and stupid. A whole horizontal market was opened just because of their simplicity. Even multiprocessing platforms like BOINC don't use anything near the WS stack, but they are the core of many high-throughput efforts.
Now, if you have to deal with complex multi-host transactions, authentication, credential delegation, caching... WS is there. It's the target that makes the need: banks, flight reservation, stuff like this. but they won't impact the common programmer. They require too much energy and too many different competences at once to become something usable for a horizontal market of developers.
Also, I am a REST person. I never advocated SOAP with much emphasis, but there was nothing else and it was a better evolution over XMLRPC (which, if you have to perform dumb RPC, IMHO it's still a good choice). Now I changed my mind. You mostly have resources on the web, and you interact with them with HTTP methods. SOAP is nothing but RPC on hypersteroids. No, REST is not the solution that replaces WS. At all. it's simply easier to use and to debug, albeit more difficult to design (you have to think in terms of resources instead of method calls). It's KISS. That's why it has more chances for success on the horizontal market.
It depends.
Web services can be useful if you need to expose the data across security boundaries, where a direct connection to an RDBMS would be a bad idea.
Popular method for implementing web services nowdays is to use RESTful API (eg. via Ajax/JSON). It's already "next big thing" – almost every major player has been offering it for years. Google, Flickr, Twitter, you name it.
The big advantage is that they help to implement an API layer.
If you implement your solution using a "bus" where the web services sit, it opens up your product to a far greater range of users and moves away from being a proprietary product.
It also enables people to interface using a wide range of solutions e.g web service clients can be implemented using command line, Jsp, Java, Asp, .NET, PHP etc.
They also enable code re-use e.g. if you implement GetClientDetails (ID) as a web service for one user, when the next group comes along wanting the same thing, all you have to do is give them the WSDL and they are away.
I'm at a point in my freelance career where I've developed several web applications for small to medium sized businesses that support things such as project management, booking/reservations, and email management.
I like the work but find that eventually my applications get to a point where the overhear for maintenance is very high. I look back at code I wrote 6 months ago and find I have to spend a while just relearning how I originally coded it before I can make a fix or feature additions. I do try to practice using frameworks (I've used Zend Framework before, and am considering Django for my next project)
What techniques or strategies do you use to plan out an application that is capable of handling a lot of users without breaking and still keeping the code clean enough to maintain easily?
If anyone has any books or articles they could recommend, that would be greatly appreciated as well.
Although there are certainly good articles on that topic, none of them is a substitute of real-world experience.
Maintainability is nothing you can plan straight ahead, except on very small projects. It is something you need to take care of during the whole project. In fact, creating loads of classes and infrastructure code in advance can produce code which is even harder to understand than naive spaghetti code.
So my advise is to clean up your existing projects, by continuously refactoring them. Look at the parts which were a pain to change, and strive for simpler solutions that are easier to understand and to adjust. If the code is even too bad for that, consider rewriting it from scratch.
Don't start new projects and expect them to succeed, just because your read some more articles or used a new framework. Instead, identify the failures of your existing projects and fix their specific problems. Whenever you need to change your code, ask yourself how to restructure it to support similar changes in the future. This is what you need to do anyway, because there will be similar changes in the future.
By doing those refactorings you'll stumble across various specific questions you can ask and read articles about. That way you'll learn more than by just asking general questions and reading general articles about maintenance and frameworks.
Start cleaning up your code today. Don't defer it to your future projects.
(The same is true for documentation. Everyone's first docs were very bad. After several months they turn out to be too verbose and filled with unimportant stuff. So complement the documentation with solutions to the problems you really had, because chances are good that next year you'll be confronted with a similar problem. Those experiences will improve your writing style more than any "how to write good" style guide.)
I'd honestly recommend looking at Martin Fowlers Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. It discusses a lot of ways to make your application more organized and maintainable. In addition, I would recommend using unit testing to give you better comprehension of your code. Kent Beck's book on Test Driven Development is a great resource for learning how to address change to your code through unit tests.
To improve the maintainability you could:
If you are the sole developer then adopt a coding style and stick to it. That will give you confidence later when navigating through your own code about things you could have possibly done and the things that you absolutely wouldn't. Being confident where to look and what to look for and what not to look for will save you a lot of time.
Always take time to bring documentation up to date. Include the task into development plan; include that time into the plan as part any of change or new feature.
Keep documentation balanced: some high level diagrams, meaningful comments. Best comments tell that cannot be read from the code itself. Like business reasons or "whys" behind certain chunks of code.
Include into the plan the effort to keep code structure, folder names, namespaces, object, variable and routine names up to date and reflective of what they actually do. This will go a long way in improving maintainability. Always call a spade "spade". Avoid large chunks of code, structure it by means available within your language of choice, give chunks meaningful names.
Low coupling and high coherency. Make sure you up to date with techniques of achieving these: design by contract, dependency injection, aspects, design patterns etc.
From task management point of view you should estimate more time and charge higher rate for non-continuous pieces of work. Do not hesitate to make customer aware that you need extra time to do small non-continuous changes spread over time as opposed to bigger continuous projects and ongoing maintenance since the administration and analysis overhead is greater (you need to manage and analyse each change including impact on the existing system separately). One benefit your customer is going to get is greater life expectancy of the system. The other is accurate documentation that will preserve their option to seek someone else's help should they decide to do so. Both protect customer investment and are strong selling points.
Use source control if you don't do that already
Keep a detailed log of everything done for the customer plus any important communication (a simple computer or paper based CMS). Refresh your memory before each assignment.
Keep a log of issues left open, ideas, suggestions per customer; again refresh your memory before beginning an assignment.
Plan ahead how the post-implementation support is going to be conducted, discuss with the customer. Make your systems are easy to maintain. Plan for parameterisation, monitoring tools, in-build sanity checks. Sell post-implementation support to customer as part of the initial contract.
Expand by hiring, even if you need someone just to provide that post-implementation support, do the admin bits.
Recommended reading:
"Code Complete" by Steve Mcconnell
Anything on design patterns are included into the list of recommended reading.
The most important advice I can give having helped grow an old web application into an extremely high available, high demand web application is to encapsulate everything. - in particular
Use good MVC principles and frameworks to separate your view layer from your business logic and data model.
Use a robust persistance layer to not couple your business logic to your data model
Plan for statelessness and asynchronous behaviour.
Here is an excellent article on how eBay tackles these problems
http://www.infoq.com/articles/ebay-scalability-best-practices
Use a framework / MVC system. The more organised and centralized your code is the better.
Try using Memcache. PHP has a built in extension for it, it takes about ten minutes to set up and another twenty to put in your application. You can cache whatever you want to it - I cache all my database records in it - for every application. It does wanders.
I would recommend using a source control system such as Subversion if you aren't already.
You should consider maybe using SharePoint. It's an environment that is already designed to do all you have mentioned, and has many other features you maybe haven't thought about (but maybe you will need in the future :-) )
Here's some information from the official site.
There are 2 different SharePoint environments you can use: Windows Sharepoint Services (WSS) or Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server (MOSS). WSS is free and ships with Windows Server 2003, while MOSS isn't free, but has much more features and covers almost all you enterprise's needs.