I am trying to consume .Net WCF APIs over TCP in Mule4, but couldn't able to find any connector.In Mule3 has seperate TCP connector for receiving and sending messages over TCP.
Can any one please help me guiding on how Mule4 would consume messages over TCP?
The equivalent connector for Mule 4 is the Sockets connector.
Related
I have configured a coturn server which I need to use with DataChannel for a chat app.
I am trying to reach a point where I can get the coturn server provide me with a tcp allocation.
I am using the standard call of RTCPeerConnection in JS client, providing the turn URI, username and credentials.
The transport I am providing in the URI params is TCP ?transport=tcp.
With all this, I am always receiving a UDP allocation and the server logs ChannelBind requests (UDP based)
Question:
How can I achieve TCP allocations throught webRTC client, to guarantee proper data delivery of the chat app in case of using my relay server?
RFC 6062, opening a TCP port on the TURN server is not supported by WebRTC. It is optional in the spec and nobody needs it since reliability is provided by SCTP.
TCP in the turn uri refers to the protocol between the client and the TURN server
Ive build a local multiplayer game (multiplayer over wlan network). Now, I want to add an online multiplayer feature..
Currently, the network communications consist mostly of "signals" (tcp/udp packets sent from game-host peer to the game-client peers). I would like to use this mostly signal based communication for my online multiplayer (because of performance and efficiency ), too . But, since the host peer is now replaced by a server there will be a lot problems with sending signals (NAT, firewall,...).
So is there good solution to implement these signals?
regards
there will be a lot problems with sending signals (NAT, firewall,...)_
What problems exactly?
Normally, the clients establish a TCP connection to the server and the server uses this TCP connection to communicate with the clients.
For UDP-based communication the clients use Internet Gateway Device Protocol to forward ports on the router, so that the server can send UDP datagrams to the clients.
Assuming your server is in public internet, not behind any NAT. All the clients must initiate the connection. Otherwise the server can't know clients credential and can't connect. As the server has no NAT it will accept connection from client. And this connection client must keep alive. So when server needs to send some data there should be no problem.
This will work for both UDP and TCP.
I used to think Skype sends and receives UDP data packets for real-time audio communication so it cannot use HTTP proxy as HTTP is based on TCP, as what people usually think. But in the support site of Skype, there is an article about HTTP proxy saying that'll affect how Skype makes the communication.
Skype uses different protocols based on the capabilities of the network. If it is behind a firewall and can not call out directly with UDP it will try to detect a HTTP proxy and use it to tunnel the traffic using a proxy CONNECT request. This means it will use TCP in this case. While this might degrade the quality of the connection because latency is often better with UDP (at the cost of data loss), this is often better than no connection at all.
I am woking on a Mobile application, which sends GPS co-ordinates from the mobile to an azure website.
Right now I am able to do this using TCP endpoints in Azure Web/Worker Role. The Mobile hardware I am using is SIM300 module.
SIM300 also provides sending data via UDP, which is much simpler, faster for my application.
I have heard Azure Connect uses UDP to communicate between local and virtual machines through UDP.
I am not sure, but is there any way to implement the same application to use UDP instead of TCP in Azure?
I managed to get UDP to work over the service bus using a UDP -> TCP tunnel. But as Simon says, you're better off using TCP if you can.
http://coderead.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/tunnelling-udp-over-the-service-bus-or-how-to-get-sentinel-licencing-server-working-on-azure/
Azure doesn't support public UDP endpoints (yet). The only current alternative is to use an non-Azure server that listens on UDP and, via Windows Azure Connect, forwards it to the 'internal' endpoint. Since your device already uses TCP anyway, I would stick with that for now.
I've read about WebSockets and I wonder why browser couldn't simply open trivial TCP connection and communicate with server like any other desktop application. And why this communication is possible via websockets?
It's easier to communicate via TCP sockets when you're working within an intranet boundary, since you likely have control over the machines on that network and can open ports suitable for making the TCP connections.
Over the internet, you're communicating with someone else's server on the other end. They are extremely unlikely to have any old socket open for connections. Usually they will have only a few standard ones such as port 80 for HTTP or 443 for HTTPS. So, to communicate with the server you are obliged to connect using one of those ports.
Given that these are standard ports for web servers that generally speak HTTP, you're therefore obliged to conform to the HTTP protocol, otherwise the server won't talk to you. The purpose of web sockets is to allow you to initiate a connection via HTTP, but then negotiate to use the web sockets protocol (assuming the server is capable of doing so) to allow a more "TCP socket"-like communication stream.
Web browsers operate at the Application layer, whereas TCP operates at the Transport Layer. As a web application developer, it's easier to send messages over the wire via the Application Layer instead of raw bytes at the Transport Layer.
Underlying WebSockets is TCP, it's just abstracted away for simplicity.
Websocket is a application layer protocol while TCP is transport layer protocol. At transport layer, we usually have TCP and UDP protocol. Any message from application layer need to go through transport layer to be transmitted to other machine. Hence, websocket and tcp have a relationship to each other and can not be comparable.
To make it simple, the websocket communications are done over TCP port number 80 (or 443 in the case of TLS-encrypted connections), which is of benefit for those environments which block non-web Internet connections using a firewall.
Would you like to use existed TCP port or open a new TCP port that might be blocked by firewall?