How is the best way to handle messages through a server to multiple devices?
Scenario
It will be an app capable of running on multiple mobile platforms including online in a web browser. A type of instant messenger. The messages will be directed through a server to another mobile device.
The back-end structure/concept must be basically the same as WhatsApp. Sending messages to one-another like that.
What I think
Have the device send it to the web-server.
Server saves it in a queue table in a database.
When receiver device checks for new message (every second) it finds it in the queue.
Remove it from queue and put message in history table.
Final
What would be a efficient way to structure/handle such an app to get similar results as WhatsApp?
You may want to push messages instead of pull them every second. This has two big advantages:
Less bandwidth usage.
You can skip the database part if the sender and the receiver are both connected when the message is sent. Only queue the messages in the database if the receiver isn't connected.
So it's a huge performance boost if you use push.
If you have a web app using JavaScript you can use a JSON stream or, for new browsers, JavaScript WebSokets.
Related
We are making a web application in Go with a MySQL database. Our users are allowed to only have one active client at a time. Much like Spotify allows you to only listen to music on one device at a time. To do this I made a map with as key the user ids and a reference to their active websocket connection as a value. Based on the websocket id that the client has to send in the header of the request we can identify weather the request comes from their active session.
My question is if it's a good practice to store data (in this case the map with the user ids and websockets) in a global space or is it better to store it in the database.
We don't expect to reach over 10000 simultaneously active clients. Average is probably gonna be around 1000.
If you only run one instance of the websocket server storing it in memory should be sufficient. Because if it for some reason goes down/restarts then all the connections will be lost and all the clients will have to create them again (and hence the list of connection will once again be populated by all the clients who want to use the service).
However, if you plan on scaling it horizontally so you have multiple websocket services behind a load balancer, then the connections may need to be stored in a database of some sort. And not because it necessarily needs to be more persistant but because you need to be able to check the request against all the services connections.
It is also possible to have a separate service which handles the incoming request and asks all the websocket services if any of them have the connection specified in the request. This could be done if you add a pub/sub queue and every websocket service subscribes to channels for all its websocket ids and the service that receives the request then publishes the websocket id, and the websocket services can then send back replies on a separate channel if they have that connection. You must decide how to handle if no one is responding (no websocket service has the websocket id). Either the channel does not exist, or you expect the answer within a specific time. Or you could publish the question on a general topic and expect all the websocket services to reply (yes or no).
And regarding whether you need to scale it I guess depends mostly on the underlying server you're running the service on. If I understand it correctly the websocket service will basically not do anything except from keeping track of its connections (you should add some ping pong to discover if connections are lost). Then your limitation should mainly be on how many file descriptors your system can handle at once. If that limit is much larger than your expected maximum number of users, then running only one server and storing everything in memory might be an OK solution!
Finally, if you're in the business of having a websocket open for all users, why not do all the "other" communication over that websocket connection instead of having them send HTTP requests with their websocket id? Perhaps HTTP fits better for your use case but could be something to think about :)
My application allows a user to enter a URL of an article he/she wishes to analyze. It goes through our API gateway to reach the correct services engaged in this process. The analysis takes between 5 and 30 seconds depending on the article's word count.
For now, my reactjs client sends the request to the API and waits for 5 to 30 seconds to receive the response. Is there a better way to handle this such as enqueuing the job and let the API ping the client (reactjs frontend) once it has been done?
Server-sent Events (SSEs) allow your server to push new information to your browser, and hence look ideal to me for this purpose. They work over HTTP and there is good support for all browsers except for IE.
So the new process could look as follows:
Client send request to server, which initiates the lookup and potentially responds with the topic the browser needs to subscribe to (in case that's unique per lookup)
Server does its thing and sends updates as it processes new content. See how the beauty of this is that you could inform your client about partial updates.
If SSEs is not an option to you, you could leverage good old Websockets for bi-directional communication, but for such a simple endeavor, it might be too much technology to solve the problem.
A third alternative, especially if you are talking amongst services (no web or mobile clients on the other side) is to use web-hooks, so that the interested party would expose and listen on a specific endpoint, that the publisher (the server that does the processing) would write updates to.
Hope this is useful.
Hi I am currently using channel API for my project. My client is a signage player which receives data from app engine server only when user changes a media content. Appengine sends data to client only ones or twice a day. Do you think channel api is a over kill for this? what are some other alternatives?
Overall, I'd think not. How many clients will be connected?
Per https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/quotas?hl=en#Channel the free quota is 200 channel-hours/day, so if you have no more than 8 clients connected you'll be within the free quota -- no "overkill".
Even beyond that, per https://cloud.google.com/appengine/pricing , there's "no additional charge" beyond the computational resources keeping the channel open entails -- I don't have exact numbers but I don't think those resources would be "overkill" compared with alternatives such as reasonably frequent polling by the clients.
According to the Channel API documentation (https://cloud.google.com/appengine/features/#channel), "The Channel API creates a persistent connection between an application and its users, allowing the application to send real time messages without the use of polling.". IMHO, yours might not the best use case for it.
You may want to take a look into the TaskQueue API (https://cloud.google.com/appengine/features/#taskqueue) as an alternative of sending data from AppEngine to the client.
I created a working Google Channel AP and now I would like to send a message to all clients.
I have two servlets. The first creates the channel and tells the clients the userid and token. The second one is called by an http post and should send the message.
To send a message to a client, I use:
channelService.sendMessage(new ChannelMessage(channelUserId, "This is a server message!"));
This sends the message just to one client. How could I send this to all?
Have I to store every Id which I use to create a channel and send the message for every id? How could I pass the Ids to the second servlet?
Using Channel API it is not possible to create one channel and then having many subscribers to it. The server creates a unique channel for individual JavaScript clients, so if you have the same Client ID the messages will be received only by one.
If you want to send the same message to multiple clients, in short, you will have to keep a track of active clients and send the same message to all of them.
If that approach sounds scary and messy, consider using PubNub for your push notification messages, where you can easily create one channel and have many subscribers. To make it run on Google App Engine is not that hard, since they support almost any platform or device.
I know this is an old question, but I just finished an open source project that uses the Channel API to implement a publish/subscribe model, i.e. you can have multiple users subscribe to a single topic, and then all those subscribers will be notified when anyone publishes a message to the topic. It also has some nice features like automatic message persistence if desired, and "return receipts", where a subscriber can be notified whenever OTHER subscribers receive that message. See https://github.com/adevine/gaewebpubsub#gae-web-pubsub. Licensed under Apache 2.0 license.
Can anyone think of a good way to allow the server to notify the client based upon server processing? For example, consider the following events:
A user requests a deletion of data, however, due to it's long-running time, we kick it off to a queue.
The client receives a "Yes we completed your transaction successfully".
The server deletes the item and now wants to update any local structures any clients may be using (I'd also like to notify the user).
I know this can be done by client-side polling. Is there a event bus type way to do this? Any suggestions are welcome, but please keep in mind I am using GWT with App Engine.
The standard AJAX interaction is that the client sends requests to the server and expects some sort of response back fairly quickly.
In order for the server to initiate a request to the client, you will need to use WebSockets, and experimental HTML5 feature currently only supported by Chrome.
Or, to simulate this kind of interaction, you can use Comet (long-polling), made available in GWT by the rocket-gwt project.
You want server events for GWT? Have a look at GwtEventService (they couldn't have chosen a better name): http://code.google.com/p/gwteventservice/wiki/StartPage
Of course, it uses a Comet implementation, but you can't do any different when using HTTP, the client always initiates the communication. Request, response.