We have a SpringIntegration workflow with restful HTTP inbound calls and outbound calls. The workflow is mostly expressed with XML declarations of channels, chains, a splitter and an aggregator.
In the Servlet realm, we use the http:inbound-gateway and http:outbound-gateway components for input/output to the internal workflow. This seems to work well using SpringBoot autoconfiguration for Tomcat/Jetty/Undertow.
We've been trying the Reactive realm, using webflux:inbound-gateway and webflux:outbound-gateway components on the same internal workflow. This seems to work OK for tomcat and jetty servers but getting no responses from netty and some errors from undertow. I have yet to discover why we are getting errors from the last two configurations.
What I'm wondering is if the same internal workflow can be hooked up to reactive or servlet components without requiring changes. We do use a splitter/aggregator, and my reading of the SpringIntegration documentation sections on WebFlux hasn't quite cleared up for me if these constructs can be used in both realms. ( https://docs.spring.io/spring-integration/reference/html/reactive-streams.html#splitter-and-aggregator )
Any pointers on this subject?
The webflux:inbound-gateway is a server side of HTTP protocol. Has to be used in the Reactive Streams HTTP server environment. Not sure about Undertow and Jetty, but Tomcat works in the simulating mode. I usually use an io.projectreactor.netty:reactor-netty-http.
The webflux:outbound-gateway is a client side of HTTP protocol. It is fully based on the WebClient and doesn't matter in what environment it is used.
same applies for a splitter and aggregator components: they don't require any server implementation and they don't expose any external ports to worry about some specifics. Can simply be used in the reactive stream definition and in regular flows.
I am looking for an approach to enable SSL on demand for gRPC.
Netty doc shows this can be done by adding a custom ByteToMessageDecoder handler, reading through the initial bytes, and making decisions on the fly.
Does grpc-java support port unification? From my initial dig at the code, the server-starter doesn't seem to expose any interface to inject custom handlers.
I'm using ForcebindIP to point an app at a specific network adapter, like this:
forcebindip -i 192.168.0.5 MyCSharpApp.exe
This works fine and the app isn't aware (or doesn't access) any of the other network adapters on the PC.
Is it possible to restrict ForceBindIP to outbound traffic only leaving the app to receive data from any local network adapter? Or even to specify a network adapter for outbound and another for inbound traffic?
I can't find an extra startup parameter for ForceBindIP that does this.
I'd appreciate any help with this.
If I get your problem correctly, you want to bind your application to listen for packets on all available interfaces but return packets to only through one given interface. I also assume it's a server application and you don't have neiter source code nor control over its behaviour.
Disclosure: I do not know how ForceBindIP works internally, I'm basing my understanding of it on this passage from the website:
it will then inject a DLL (BindIP.dll) which loads WS2_32.DLL into memory and intercepts the bind(), connect(), sendto(), WSAConnect() and WSASendTo() functions, redirecting them to code in the DLL which verifies which interface they will be bound to and if not the one specified, (re)binds the socket
Problems to overcome
I don't believe your desired configuration is possible with just one application level DLL injector. I'll list a few issues that ForceBindIP will have to overcome to make it work:
to listen to a socket, application has to bind() it to a unique protocol-address-port combination first. An application can bind itself to either a specific address or a wildcard (i.e. listen on all interfaces). Apparently, one can bind to wildcard and specific address simultaneously as outlined in this SO question. This however will be two different sockets from the application standpoint. Therefore your application will have to know how to handle this sort of traffic.
When accepting client connection, accept() will create a new socket and parameters on that are managed by Windows, I don't believe there's an API to intercept binding here - by this time the connection is considered established.
Now imagine, we somehow got a magic socket. We can receive packets on one interface and send to another. The client (and all routing equipment on the way) will have to be aware that two packets originating from two different source IP addresses are actually part of the same connection and be able to assemble the TCP session (or correctly merge UDP streams).
You can have multiple gefault gateways with different priorities and rules (which is a whole different topic to explore) but as far as I'm aware that's not going to solve your particular issue: majority of routing protocols assume links are symmetric and expect packets to keep within same interface. There are special cases like asymmetric routing and network interface teaming but they have to be implemented on per-interface level.
One potential solution
One way to achieve what you're after (I don't know enough about your environment to claim it will work), will be to create a virtual interface, set it into yet another IP network, bind your application to it, then use firewall (to, say, allow multicast backets into the "virtual" network) and routing from that network to required default gateway with metric set to 1. I also suspect just any Windows will not be that flexible, so you might need like a Server Edition.
I am sorry this didn't turn out to be the ready-to-fly solution, I however am hoping this gives you more context to the problem you are facing and points you into other directions to explore.
You can use Set-NetAdapterAdvancedProperty command in Powershell to set the flow control of your specified adapter
To get the names and properties of all the network adapter :-
Get-NetAdapterAdvancedProperty -Name "*"
Suppose you want the network adapter named "Ethernet 2" to be only used to receive data from internet then type :-
Set-NetAdapterAdvancedProperty -Name "Ethernet 2" -DisplayName "Flow Control" -DisplayValue "Rx Enabled"
You can find more in :
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/netadapter/set-netadapteradvancedproperty?view=win10-ps
Microsoft winsock example has a usage in their example for limiting a socket to only send or receive mode. It might help.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winsock/complete-client-code
Outbount and Inbount limits are not imposed while binding. But latter or when connection is established.
Line of code pertaining to this in client code is toward the end.
// shutdown the connection since no more data will be sent
iResult = shutdown(ConnectSocket, SD_SEND);
I try to understand protobuf and gRPC and how I can use both. Could you help me understand the following:
Considering the OSI model what is where, for example is Protobuf at layer 4?
Thinking through a message transfer how is the "flow", what is gRPC doing what protobuf misses?
If the sender uses protobuf can the server use gRPC or does gRPC add something which only a gRPC client can deliver?
If gRPC can make synchronous and asynchronous communication possible, Protobuf is just for the marshalling and therefore does not have anything to do with state - true or false?
Can I use gRPC in a frontend application communicating instead of REST or GraphQL?
I already know - or assume I do - that:
Protobuf
Binary protocol for data interchange
Designed by Google
Uses generated "Struct" like description at client and server to un-/-marshall message
gRPC
Uses protobuf (v3)
Again from Google
Framework for RPC calls
Makes use of HTTP/2 as well
Synchronous and asynchronous communication possible
I again assume its an easy question for someone already using the technology. I still would thank you to be patient with me and help me out. I would also be really thankful for any network deep dive of the technologies.
Protocol buffers is (are?) an Interface Definition Language and serialization library:
You define your data structures in its IDL i.e. describe the data objects you want to use
It provides routines to translate your data objects to and from binary, e.g. for writing/reading data from disk
gRPC uses the same IDL but adds syntax "rpc" which lets you define Remote Procedure Call method signatures using the Protobuf data structures as data types:
You define your data structures
You add your rpc method definitions
It provides code to serve up and call the method signatures over a network
You can still serialize the data objects manually with Protobuf if you need to
In answer to the questions:
gRPC works at layers 5, 6 and 7. Protobuf works at layer 6.
When you say "message transfer", Protobuf is not concerned with the transfer itself. It only works at either end of any data transfer, turning bytes into objects
Using gRPC by default means you are using Protobuf. You could write your own client that uses Protobuf but not gRPC to interoperate with gRPC, or plugin other serializers to gRPC - but using gRPC would be easier
True
Yes you can
Actually, gRPC and Protobuf are 2 completely different things. Let me simplify:
gRPC manages the way a client and a server can interact (just like a web client/server with a REST API)
protobuf is just a serialization/deserialization tool (just like JSON)
gRPC has 2 sides: a server side, and a client side, that is able to dial a server. The server exposes RPCs (ie. functions that you can call remotely). And you have plenty of options there: you can secure the communication (using TLS), add authentication layer (using interceptors), ...
You can use protobuf inside any program, that has no need to be client/server. If you need to exchange data, and want them to be strongly typed, protobuf is a nice option (fast & reliable).
That being said, you can combine both to build a nice client/server sytem: gRPC will be your client/server code, and protobuf your data protocol.
PS: I wrote this paper to show how one can build a client/server with gRPC and protobuf using Go, step by step.
grpc is a framework build by google and it is used in production projects from google itself and #HyperledgerFabric is built with grpc there are many opensource applications built with grpc
protobuff is a data representation like json this is also by google in fact they have some thousands of proto file are generated in their production projects
grpc
gRPC is an open-source framework developed by google
It allows us to create Request & Response for RPC and handle rest by the framework
REST is CRUD oriented but grpc is API oriented(no constraints)
Build on top of HTTP/2
Provides >>>>> Auth, Loadbalancing, Monitoring, logging
[HTTP/2]
HTTP1.1 has released in 1997 a long time ago
HTTP1 opens a new TCP connection to a server at each request
It doesn't compress headers
NO server push, it just works with Req, Res
HTTP2 released in 2015 (SPDY)
Supports multiplexing
client & server can push messages in parallel over the same TCP connection
Greatly reduces latency
HTTP2 supports header compression
HTTP2 is binary
proto buff is binary so it is a great match for HTTP2
[TYPES]
Unary
client streaming
server streaming
Bi directional streaming
grpc servers are Async by default
grpc clients can be sync or Async
protobuff
Protocol buffers are language agnostic
Parsing protocol buffers(binary format) is less CPU intensive
[Naming]
Use camel case for message names
underscore_seperated for fields
Use camelcase for Enums and CAPITAL_WITH_UNDERSCORE for value names
[Comments]
Support //
Support /* */
[Advantages]
Data is fully Typed
Data is fully compressed (less bandwidth usage)
Schema(message) is needed to generate code and read the code
Documentation can be embedded in the schema
Data can be read across any language
Schema can evolve any time in a safe manner
faster than XML
code is generated for you automatically
Google invented proto buff, they use 48000 protobuf messages & 12000.proto files
Lots of RPC frameworks, including grpc use protocol buffers to exchange data
gRPC is an instantiation of RPC integration style that is based on protobuf serialization library.
There are five integration styles: RPC, File Transfer, MOM, Distributed Objects, and Shared Database.
RMI is another example of instantiation of RPC integration style. There are many others. MQ is an instantiation of MOM integration style. RabbitMQ as well. Oracle database schema is an instantiation of Shared Database integration style. CORBA is an instantiation of Distributed Objects integration style. And so on.
Avro is an example of another (binary) serialization library.
gRPC (google Remote Procedure Call) is a client-server structure.
Protocol buffers are a language-neutral, platform-neutral extensible mechanism for serializing structured data.
service Greeter {
rpc SayHello (HelloRequest) returns (HelloResponse) {}
}
message HelloRequest {
string myname = 1;
}
message HelloResponse {
string responseMsg = 1;
}
Protocol buffer is used to exchange data between gRPC client and gRPC Server. It is a protocol between gRPC client and gRPC Server. Protocol buffer is implemented as a .proto file in gRPC project. It defines interface, e.g. service, which is provided by server-side and message format between client and server, and rpc methods, which are used by the client to access the server.
Both client and side have the same proto files. (One real example: envoy xds grpc client side proto files, server side proto files.) It means that both the client and server know the interface, message format, and the way that the client accesses services on the server side.
The proto files (e.g. protocol buffer) will be compiled into real language.
The generated code contains both stub code for clients to use and an abstract interface for servers to implement, both with the method defined in the service.
service defined in the proto file (e.g. protocol buffer) will be translated as abstract class xxxxImplBase (e.g. interface on the server side).
newStub(), which is a synchronous call, is the way to implement a remote procedure call (e.g. rpc in the proto file).
And the methods which build request and response messages are also implemented in the generated files.
I re-implemented simple client and server-side samples based on samples in the official doc. cpp client, cpp server, java client, java server, springboot client, springboot server
Recommended Useful Docs:
cpp/helloworld/README.md#generating-grpc-code,
cpp/basics/#generating-client-and-server-code,
cpp/basics/#defining-the-service,
generated-code/#client-stubs,
a blocking/synchronous stub
StreamObserver
how-to-use-grpc-with-spring-boot
Others: core-concepts,
gRPC can use protocol buffers as both its Interface Definition Language (IDL) and as its underlying message interchange format
In simplest form grpc is like a public vechicle.It will exchange data between client and server.
The protocol Buffer is the protocol like your bus ticket,that decides where you should go or shouldn't go.
I would like to make POST request through a DoFn for a Apache Beam Pipeline running on Dataflow.
For that, I have created a client which instanciate an HttpClosableClient configured on a PoolingHttpClientConnectionManager.
However, I instanciate a client for each element that I process.
How could I setup a persistent client used by all my elements?
And is there other class for parallel and high-speed HTTP requests that I should use?
You can put the client into a member variable, use the #Setup method to open it, and #Teardown to close it. Implementation of almost all IOs in Beam uses this pattern, e.g. see JdbcIO.