I'm looking to add some sort of HTTP push-like functionality, implemented via long polling or another standard means, to a page built with Perl on top of Apache.
Is there a way to do this without setting up a separate server such as Meteor or Stardust? Is there a module that would help with the server code? Is there a way other than long polling?
If your need a quick and dirty fix to avoid major changes to your current application or design, and you do not need instant updates, then one simple approach is to use regular AJAX polling from the browser to the server.
In other words you would have javascript in your browser check the server every couple of seconds to see if there is any message and/or data on the server for this browser session. This will most likely not scale very well, especially with short poll timeouts, and will eat up server resources, but it may be a useful stopgap solution.
Just to reiterate, this is just a quick fix workaround - general consensus is you need to use COMET (probably on a separate server in your case) as a proper solution (until websockets arrive...) - see some good analysis in these links:
http://cometdaily.com/2007/11/06/comet-is-always-better-than-polling/
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2975290/comet-vs-ajax-polling
Related
I need to stream data from a web server to clients. The data is location data that is collected and stored on the server. The clients will click a button on an html page to 'opt in' to start receiving the data. This data is never ending and there is at least one of the clients that needs to receive the data 24-7, with as few breaks as possible. The data being streamed will be client specific, as each client wont receive the exact same data.
I've done several multi-threaded tcp servers over sockets, and websockets are the way I would like to attack this, but the requirements are that this has to work in ie9.
The initial requirement was that this be a vb.net cgi executable - but during testing, I havent been able to 'use' the stream from the vb.net executable until the app finishes - like it wasn't able to flush the stdout even though I was specificly using the console.out.flush(). So If this isn't a viable option, and I can support this with facts, then I can get this requirement changed.
I've also read quite a bit about using a third party server to stream the data like Orbit and APE I think was a couple of them, but requirements are for 1 server - the web server. No other hardware can be required.
I'm pretty sure the vb.net CGI isn't the ideal solution based on what i've found, but is it doable or do I need to abandon that solution and move on to a newer technology , ISAPI? Any ideas or suggestions, even if they just point me in the right direction, are greatly appreciated.
You might go few ways.
If you would go C# .Net, then you might look into Silverlight solution. But it requires plugin in browser to be installed (like Flash). Good thing here, is that you are able to send data through normal sockets, in pure realtime from server. In same time Silverlight uses .Net so it makes some code to be shared. That helps development process. As well the way it will work in different browsers will be same.
You might have a look in similar solution using Java Applet with Java backend (can be even .Net, but again, easier to develop when both in same language).
Another option is to have fron-end using WebSockets, but as you know its not supported in IE9 and below (IE10 promises to be), and Opera is not supporting it as well.
Backend can be done in what you prefer. But bear in mind that WebSockets uses framing, and for constant but little packets its not efficient, because if you send 10 bytes, then it will create frame 2-12 bytes, and TCP packet header that is 40 bytes in average.
To support older browsers you might have a look in long-polling, but it is not as reliable as websockets.
As well it is important to calculate the amount of data and approximate amount of users that will use your system. Based on calculations you will have approximate information about how real it is, and what server will be required to handle.
I got a project using GWTP (which involves MVP separation, Gin and Dispatch), now I'm on the situation where it is required that changes on the server are pushed to specific clients
I've reading the gwt-comet and gwteventservice documentation, It seems the first doesn't work with RPC and the second Ecnapsulates RPC, for which I don't know how to fit it in my current command pattern from GWTP. Ideas?
I have been using gwt-comet (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-comet/). It's a native comet implementation working pretty good like RPC, you can send Strings or your GWT-serialized objects as well. And the best thing you don't need to do many things to make it works.
i used "Server Push in GWT" described here http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ServerPushFAQ - it seemed to work fairly well for a small project.
This is really a servlet problem, not a GWT or GWTP problem.
So there are a few approaches to doing this, the most stable (in my opinion) is to have a long or blocking poll servlet. This is basically a servlet that is polled by the client, and holds the connection open for some period of time if there is no message to 'push' to the client, and if too much time passes (this is to get around http timeouts) a heartbeat is returned of some kind. Either way, when the servlet request request returns, the client just makes another request. This is the most portable and stable way to my mind, since it uses only the core servlet api, doesn't suffer from network issues, and the blocking portion allows you to have the poll 'park' at the server for some period of time and reduces total request load, while allowing very quick return of new information to the client when there is some available.
The next way to achieve this is via WebSockets, this is great once you get it working and in my opinion is the way of the future without question. I think this is a good one to work with since this will be, in my opinion, a paradigm shift in web applications once it catches a head of steam, so we all need to be up to speed. Basically, you have a javascript 'socket' open via port 80 (this is one of the best features, since you don't have to open any firewall holes) and can communicate in two directions across that socket.
Comet can also work, but it will generally lock you down to one server type, which may be alright for your application. Caveat here!!!! I have only done very small tests with comet, it was flaky for me when I set it up, and was not as steady as the blocking poll solution as I had it set up.
Now the neatest one in my opinion, but this one is very limited due to network constraints probably to single domain intranet applications, is to use an applet based push. This setup (which could be done with udp or a straight socket, I did all web just to keep it all simpler conceptually) takes the applet, uses it to spin up a jetty server instance on the client, and the has the page publish the client's jetty 'endpoint' to the server. At this point, the client can contact the server using it's servlets, and the server can contact the client at the servlet(s) exposed on the jetty server. This is true push, it's neato, but there are network nightmares.
So of all the above, I use long polling, keep my eye on web sockets since they are the future in my mind, and really like the applet based version, although it's quite restricted in use due to the network resolution limitations.
Once you have this decided, from GWTP you would just have actions or JSNI bridge methods as needed to connect to your server and receive responses. I won't go into this, since this is really a core servlet/http/javascript question more than a GWT or GWTP centric question.
I hope that helps!
First, here's my original question that spawned all of this.
I'm using Appcelerator Titanium to develop an iPhone app (eventually Android too). I'm connecting to CouchDB's port directly by using Titanium's Titanium.Network.TCPSocket object. I believe it utilizes the Apple SDK's CFSocket/NSStream class.
Once connected, I simply write:
'GET /mydb/_changes?filter=app/myfilter&feed=continuous&gameid=4&heartbeat=30000 HTTP/1.1\r\n\r\n'
directly to the socket. It keeps it open "forever" and returns JSON data whenever the db is updated and matches the filter and change request. Cool.
I'm wondering, is it ok to connect directly to CouchDB's socket like this, or would I be better off opening the socket to node.js instead, and maybe using this CouchDB node.js module to handle the CouchDB proxy through node.js?
My main concern is performance. I just don't have enough experience with CouchDB to know if hitting its socket and passing faux HTTP requests directly is good practice or not. Looking for experience and opinions on any ramifications or alternate suggestions.
It's me again. :-)
CouchDB inherits super concurrency handling from Erlang, the language it was written in. Erlang uses lightweight processes and message passing between those processes to achieve excellent performance under high concurrent load. It will take advantage of all cpu cores, too.
Nodejs runs a single process and basically only does one thing at a time within that process. Its event-based, non-blocking IO approach does allow it to multitask while it waits for chunks of IO but it still only does one thing at a time.
Both should easily handle tens of thousands of connections, but I would expect CouchDB to handle concurrency better (and with less effort on your part) than Node. And keep in mind that Node adds some latency if you put it in front of CouchDB. That may only be noticeable if you have them on different machines, though.
Writing directly to Couch via TCPSocket is a-ok as long as your write a well-formed HTTP request that follows the spec. (You're not passing a faux request...that's a real HTTP request you're sending just like any other.)
Note: HTTP 1.1 does require you to include a Host header in the request, so you'll need to correct your code to reflect that OR just use HTTP 1.0 which doesn't require it to keep things simple. (I'm curious why you're not using Titanium.Network.HTTPClient. Does it only give you the request body after the request finishes or something?)
Anyway, CouchDB can totally handle direct connections and--unless you put a lot of effort into your Node proxy--it's probably going to give users a better experience when you have 100k of them playing the game at once.
EDIT: If you use Node write an actual HTTP proxy. That will run a lot faster than using the module you provided and be simpler to implement. (Rather than defining your own API that then makes requests to Couch you can just pass certain requests on to CouchDB and block others, say, for security reasons.
Also take a look at how "multinode" works:
http://www.sitepen.com/blog/2010/07/14/multi-node-concurrent-nodejs-http-server/
On this post, I read about the usage of XMPP. Is this sort of thing necessary, and more importantly, my main question expanded: Can a chat server and client be built efficiently using only standard HTTP and browser technologies (such as PHP and JS, or RoR and JS, etc)? Or, is it best to stick with old protocols like XMPP find a way to integrate them with my application?
I looked into CampFire via LiveHTTPHeaders and Firebug for about 5 minutes, and it appears to use Ajax to send a request which is never answered until another chat happens. Is this just CampFire opening a new thread on the server to listen for an update and then returning a response to the request when the thread hears an update? I noticed that they're requesting on a specific port (8043 if memory serves me) which makes me think that they're doing something more complex than just what I mentioned. Also, the URL requested started with /tcp/ which I found interesting.
Note: I don't expect to ever have more than 150 users live-chatting in all the rooms combined at the same time. I understand that if I was building a hosted pay for chat service like CampFire with thousands of concurrent users, it would behoove me to invest time in researching special technologies vs trying to reinvent the wheel in a simple way in my app.
Also, if you're going to do it with server polling, how often would you personally poll to maximize response without slamming the server?
The technology is broadly called Comet, which is supposedly some hilarious pun on Ajax1.
The XmlHTTPResponse variant seems to be the most popular.
The XHR version isn't strictly polling per se; as you said, the client connects with a long timeout and the server doesn't actually send a response until there is anything to send. Once the response is sent, it drops the connection and the client reconnects. They call it long polling, because the client is initiating the connection, but it differs from classic polling in that the client doesn't constantly connect requesting new content even if nothing has changed (i.e. no "is there a message now? no? how about now? what about now?")
It's more like trying to keep a constantly dropping connection open.
Yes it can absolutely be built using standard web technologies.
1I prefer to think of Ajax as a mighty Greek warrior rather than a cleaning product, so I frown mightily upon this pun.
That would first depend on your strategy of your webserver load balancing. 150 concurrent users that publish data over a stateless medium (HTTP) is certainly efficient with the bit of scripting (client- and server side). Remember that chat applications are just many client -> one server strategies, that fits perfectly over the web.
We need is to push sports data to a number of different client types such as ajax/javascript, flash, .NET and Mac/iPhone. Data updates need to only be near-real time with delays of several seconds being acceptable.
How to best accomplish this?
The best solution (if we're talking .NET) seem to be to use WCF and streaming http. The client makes the first http connection to the server at port 80, the connection is then kept open with a streaming response that never ends. (And if it does it reconnects).
Here's a sample that demonstrates this: Streaming XML.
The solution to pushing through firewalls: Keeping connections open in IIS
I would go with XML. XML is widely supported on all platforms and has lots of libraries and tools available for it. And since it's text, there are no issues when you pass it between platforms.
I know JSON is another alternative, but I'm not familiar enough with it to know whether or not to recommend it in this case.