Our web service has a "ping" function which is great for testing if the web service is available or not (I don't really care if the internet connection is available, right?) and I know how to test this condition, but how do I go about implementing this in my application? As in where do I test?
If there is no connection, the app doesn't crash of course, it just returns an empty table view or set of views. Should I put the ping before each request and generate an exception or error message when the ping fails? The web service request + response itself can take longer than the transmission of the actual data (latency I guess it would be) so I worry that implementing a Ping before each request might almost double the time it takes to perform each request. Or, should I be continually ping-ing and making sure there is a connection? What is the best practice?
Or should I even worry about it at all?
I was able to use the Reachability library as seen in the answer to How to check for an active Internet connection on iOS or OSX? . You can extend the library to include not only hostReachable but wsReachable with a little bit of work that is probably obvious to all.
iOS can provide you with callbacks once the network connectivity changes (e.g. from airplane mode to cell only to wifi and back). So you get notified whenever the network state changes and you don't need to keep pinging the server and can display proper online/offline messages.
Have a look at the SCNetworkReachabilitySetCallback method in the NetworkReachability.h header.
Related
My Flutter mobile app communicates with my back-end server. The docs say it's better to use Client class (IOClient) than plain get, put, etc. methods to maintain persistent connections across multiple requests to the same server.
Docs also say that:
It's important to close each client when it's done being used; failing
to do so can cause the Dart process to hang.
I don't understand when I need to close the client, because almost all app screens require HTTP connection to the same server. What's the best practice here?
Update:
Is it OK to close Client only before app is terminated, or should I close it every time app is hidden (goes to paused state)?
I personnaly think that closing client after each user action is the best practise.
What i call an "user action" can be constituted of multiple API request.
So i think the best is something like that:
var client = http.Client();
try {
var response = await client.post(
Uri.https('my-api-site.com', 'users/add'),
body: {'firstname': 'Alain', 'Lastname': 'Deseine'});
var Response = jsonDecode(utf8.decode(response.bodyBytes)) as Map;
...
// Add here every API request that you need to complete the users action
} finally {
// Then finally destroy the client.
client.close();
}
Don't close the HTTP Client
For some of you, it may sound odd, but the solution is as simple as not to do that.
Why
In most cases, the HTTP Client should be available for the whole app run time. Also, app resources are disposed automatically when the app is closed by the user. For that reason, in most cases, we don't need to handle the disposal of the HTTP Client.
When to dispose an HTTP Client?
Only if we want to run a limited, one-time, predicted, season of HTTP requests. In that case, you can dispose of the Client in many different ways (depending on your state management or the lifecycle that you want to trigger the disposal).
The dispose() function is common to all packages that handle cache and local resources. The documentation mentions that option, but it does not suggest you use it in every scenario. It should be handled in very specific scenarios only.
So for most of you, just don't dispose of the HTTP Client.
Keep connections atomic per server interaction.
almost all app screens require HTTP connection to the same server
One thing is that all screens make http calls, other thing is having constant high frequency interactions with the server.
Let's say we have a multiplayer app, that requires each second that passes to communicate with the server. If that was the case, leaving the client open would be critical. Even though you have the architectural consequence that the dart process would hang. This would mean that dart may not be the best solution for a high server traffic app.
To my understanding your app is not the case. You don't need to worry about leaving the connection open constantly, so you could only open and close it each time you need to use it without having to pay a high performance price.
It should be seemless to the user if you are opening a connection each time you try to consume your API.
Having said this, here are some other insights on this topic:
A large amount of clients connected to the server, even when not active, may consume resources of memory or objects (for example, if there is one thread per connection). On the other hand, keeping the connection on, will allow the client to detect if there is a connection problem to the server much faster (if that even matters). Extracted from this other thread
Hopefully this will help you, given your use case, take a better decision.
In terms of network traffic, it's better to use the same client throughout the app lifecycle. Establishing a new connection for each api is very expensive. However, as per the documentation,
It's important to close each client when it's done being used; failing to do so can cause the Dart process to hang.
Also, if client.close() isn't called, it doesn't mean that the server will keep the connection open forever. The server will close the connection if it is idle for a period more than the HTTP Keep-Alive Timeout. In this case, if the client sends a new request over the connection closed by server, he'll get a 408 Request Timeout.
So, if you decide to use the same client throughout the app lifecycle, keep in your mind the two possible issues that you may run into.
I'm trying to enhance a server-app-website architecture in reliability, another programmer has developed.
At the moment, android smartphones start a tcp connection to a server component to exchange data. The server takes the data, writes them into a DB and another user can have a look on the data through a website. The problem is that the smartphones very regularly are in locations where connectivity is really bad. The consequence is that the smartphones lose the tcp connection and it's hard to reconnect. Now my question is, if there are any protocols that are so lightweight or accomodating concerning bad connectivity that the data exchange could work better or more reliable.
For example, I was thinking about replacing the raw TCP interface with a RESTful API, but I don't really know how well REST works in this scenario, as I don't have any experience in this area.
Maybe useful to know for answering this question: The server component is programmed in c#. The connecting components are android smartphones.
Please understand that I dont add some code to this question, because in my opinion its just a theoretically question.
Thank you in advance !
REST runs over HTTP which runs over TCP so it would have the same issues with connectivity.
Moving up the stack to the application you could perhaps think in terms of 'interference'. I quite often have to use technical stuff in remote areas with limited reception and it reminds of trying to communicate in a storm. If you think about it, if you're trying to get someone to do something in a storm where they can hardly hear you and the words get blown away (dropped signal), you don't read them the manual on how to fix something, you shout key words such as 'handle', 'pull', 'pull', 'PULL', 'ok'. So the information reaches them in small bursts you can repeat (pull, what? pull, eh? PULL! oh righto!)
Can you redesign the communications between the android app and the server so the server can recognise key 'words' with corresponding data and build up the request over a period of time? If you consider idempotency, each burst of data would not alter the request if it has already been received (pull, PULL!) and over time the android app could send/receive smaller chunks of the request. If the signal stays up, just keep sending. If it goes down, note which parts of the request haven't been sent and retry them when the signal comes back.
So you're sending the request jigsaw-style but the server knows how to reassemble the pieces in the right order. A STOP word at the end tells the server ok this request is complete, go work on it. Until that word arrives the server can store the incomplete request or discard it if no more data comes in.
If the server respond to the first request chunk with an id, the app can use the id to get the response and keep trying until the full response comes back, at which point the server can remove the response from its jigsaw cache. A fair amount of work though.
I am building an OSX app that needs to get data from server. The easy way, is to make a GET request at some fixed time interval, and process results. Thats not what I want. I want the other way around: e.g. server to send data to my app, when something happens on the server side. That way I do not need to make constant requests from client side. I don't need the data to visually be displayed, just processed.
Can this be implemented in OSX with Swift?
You have two ways to achieve this:
Websocket:
Websocket is a full-duplex communication channel over a TCP-Connection. It's established via HTTP.
Long Polling:
Same as you said before but without responding directly. Your client makes a HTTP request and set a very long timeout timer. The server responds after something is happening. (More)
I would recommend you Websocket since it was built exactly for this use case. But if you have to implement it quickly you should probably go with long polling for now, since the barrier to implement it is much lower and switch to Websocket later.
I don't know very much about sockets at all. What I am wondering is how the sockets work.
1) Firewalls often block ports. Is it plausible that if I request a socket and it is behind a blocked port anything that is sent or received will get intercepted and destroyed? Is this an issue?
2) On the server side how do you keep the connection alive to send data back through, like if I was building a chat app is it possible to start a connection through a socket and keep that alive and have the server basically push new data through the stream. Instead of the apps having to query every so often.
3) If the app goes into the background apple says they will keep the socket as long its not needed (if it is voip). Does that mean that I could still send data through to the app and have it handled? If my app is registered for location updates and executing in the background already will the socket stay open?
Are there any server languages that make it simple? I am currently using python and Django for a simple http server. Are any tutorials on setting up a server that can keep connections alive. I really don't know much about this so what i'm asking may not make any sense but some direction would be greatly appreciated.
1) I haven't found an issue with firewalls at all.
2) I used a twisted server along side my web server to implement a event driven socket server and it works great.
3) the sockets will stay open as long as you are executing in the background and the delegate methods are called to handle stream events.
There is an excellent tutorial here:
http://www.raywenderlich.com/3932/how-to-create-a-socket-based-iphone-app-and-server
that goes over the twisted framework and how to create a chat app with sockets. I found that immensely helpful.
I'm working on an iPhone application which will use long-polling to send event notifications from the server to the client over HTTP. After opening a connection on the server I'm sending small bits of JSON that represent events, as they occur. I am finding that -[NSURLConnectionDelegate connection:didReceiveData] is not being called until after I close the connection, regardless of the cache settings I use when creating the NSURLRequest. I've verified that the server end is working as expected - the first JSON event will be sent immediately, and subsequent events will be sent over the wire as they occur. Is there a way to use NSURLConnection to receive these events as they occur, or will I need to instead drop down to the CFSocket API?
I'm starting to work on integrating CocoaAsyncSocket, but would prefer to continue using NSURLConnection if possible as it fits much better with the rest of my REST/JSON-based web service structure.
NSURLConnection will buffer the data while it is downloading and give it all back to you in one chunk with the didReceiveData method. The NSURLConnection class can't tell the difference between network lag and an intentional split in the data.
You would either need to use a lower-level network API like CFSocket as you mention (you would have access to each byte as it comes in from the network interface, and could distinguish the two parts of your payload), or you could take a look at a library like CURL and see what types of output buffering/non-buffering there is there.
I ran into this today. I wrote my own class to handle this, which mimics the basic functionality of NSURLConnection.
http://github.com/nall/SZUtilities/blob/master/SZURLConnection.h
It sounds as if you need to flush the socket on the server-side, although it's really difficult to say for sure. If you can't easily change the server to do that, then it may help to sniff the network connection to see when stuff is actually getting sent from the server.
You can use a tool like Wireshark to sniff your network.
Another option for seeing what's getting sent/received to/from the phone is described in the following article:
http://blog.jerodsanto.net/2009/06/sniff-your-iphones-network-traffic/
Good luck!
We're currently doing some R&D to port our StreamLink comet libraries to the iPhone.
I have found that in the emulator you will start to get didReceiveData callbacks once 1KB of data is received. So you can send a junk 1KB block to start getting callbacks. It seems that on the device, however, this doesn't happen. In safari (on device) you need to send 2KB, but using NSURLConnection I too am getting no callbacks. Looks like I may have to take the same approach.
I might also play with multipart-replace and some other more novel headers and mime types to see if it helps stimulate NSURLConnection.
There is another HTTP API Implementation named ASIHttpRequest. It doesn't have the problem stated above and provides a complete toolkit for almost every HTTP feature, including File Uploads, Cookies, Authentication, ...
http://allseeing-i.com/ASIHTTPRequest/