I would want to send a message from the server actively, such as using UDP/TCPIP to a client using an arduino. It is known that this is possible if the user has port forward the specific port to the device on local network. However I wouldn't want to have the user to port forward manually, perhaps using another protocol, will this be possible?
1 Arduino Side
I think the closest you can get to this is opening a connection to the server from the arduino, then use available to wait for the server to stream some data to the arduino. Your code will be polling the open connection, but you are avoiding all the back and forth communications to open and close the connection, passing headers back and forth etc.
2 Server Side
This means the bulk of the work will be on the server side, where you will need to manage open connections so you can instantly write to them when a user triggers some event which requires a message to be pushed to the arduino. How to do this varies a bit depending on what type of server application you are running.
2.1 Node.js "walk-through" of main issues
In Node.js for example, you can res.write() on a connection, without closing it - this should give a similar effect as having an open serial connection to the arduino. That leaves you with the issue of managing the connection - should the server periodically check a database for messages for the arduino? That simply removes one link from the arduino -> server -> database polling link, so we should be able to do better.
We can attach a function triggered by the event of a message being added to the database. Node-orm2 is a database Object Relational Model driver for node.js, and it offers hooks such as afterSave and afterCreate which you can utilize for this type of thing. Depending on your application, you may be better off not using a database at all and simply using javascript objects.
The only remaining issue then, is: once the hook is activated, how do we get the correct connection into scope so we can write to it? Well you can save all the relevant data you have on the request to some global data structure, maybe a dictionary with an arduino ID as index, and in the triggered function you fetch all the data, i.e. the request context and you write to it!
See this blog post for a great example, including node.js code which manages open connections, closing them properly and clearing from memory on timeout etc.
3 Conclusion
I haven't tested this myself - but I plan to since I already have an existing application using arduino and node.js which is currently implemented using normal polling. Hopefully I will get around to it soon and return here with results.
Typically in long-polling (from what I've read) the connection is closed once data is sent back to the client (arduino), although I don't see why this would be necessary. I plan to try keeping the same connection open for multiple messages, only closing after a fixed time interval to re-establish the connection - and I hope to set this interval fairly high, 5-15 minutes maybe.
We use Pubnub to send notifications to a client web browser so a user can know immediately when they have received a "message" and stuff like that. It works great.
This seems to have the same constraints that you are looking at: No static IP, no port forwarding. User can theoretically just plug the thing in...
It looks like Pubnub has an Arduino library:
https://github.com/pubnub/arduino
Related
I have an embedded device running BT5 with GATT server setup. On the server I have setup a service with various characteristics to allow a client (PC or Mobile Device) to adjust various parameters of the device by writing to the characteristics.
I would like, for the device to send a response back from the application level for each write. It's not clear to me what the recommended way would be.
I thought about having the client read or subscribe to a general status characteristic, but I want to make sure I am not missing an easier way to do this. I looked at the BT write with response command, but it seems the acknowledgement for that may happen lower than the application.
You should be able to use the Write Response as "application level response". I have not seen any Bluetooth stack where this response is sent at a lower level before the application has processed the request. The reason is probably because the application can even send an Application Error code instead of a Write Response, so it would be stupid to move the Write Response handling to a lower level. Even in Android (if you set up a GATT server) you send the Write Response from the application.
The situation is different with Indications, though, where the Bluetooth stack sometimes sends the Confirmation at a lower level than the application, before it even informs the application that an Indication has arrived, which I find a bit strange and makes Indications kind of pointless compared to Notifications.
I solved this using a Notification characteristic. The client first subscribes to notification events on that CCD, and then every command sent to the host/device is acknowledged by the host firing the notification. To better synchronize command-and-response, you could add an incremental command-id with every command, and have the command-id be part of the notification data that is sent back to the client.
However I implemented this because I needed a response after the device has processed the command, with the results sent back to the client. If all you want to know is whether or not the host has received the command, a Write-With-Response CCD is the way to go.
I looked at the BT write with response command, but it seems the acknowledgement for that may happen lower than the application.
Indeed, the Write-With-Response-Handler is almost always implemented on the BLE stack, not on application level. However I don't see why this would be a problem; you should get error reports by your BLE stack in some form when a Write-with-Response fails. If it's a blocking call it might even return a success-value.
As what title said, i still confusing and turn around in deep-hole and get lost about one month in it. So i really need help.
I would like to create client-server online game, and separate Client and Server to different project with each other, and for understanding, i don't using any NetworkManager and script from demo project.
Why i do that ? I want client is always remote client, and server always dedicated server that mean no local client.
All communication until now i using custom message from MessageBase and it ok for me. But the problem come with spawn game object, sync with all remote client, i don't know how to do that.
The server just handle connection, message and send back to client so it just GUI only, then i want to ask that it MUST be share scenes at client ? Does it NEED TO DO IT ?
The client is a remote client, so how to sync movement, spawn, and etc to another client via server ? If i using transfer message base on MessageBase, it look so complicate than using SyncVar or Command. But i don't know how Server handle Command, because it separate different with Client. Can anyone help ?
AM I WRONG WAY ?
I'd like my Pinocc.io lead scout to make a POST request (e.g. to inform a remote service of an event that has been triggered).
Note that I don't want to listen to a constant stream the results (as detailed here) as I don't want to be constantly connected to the HQ (I'm going to enable the wi-fi connection only when required to minimize battery usage), and the events I'm detecting are infrequent.
I would have thought that this is a very common use case, yet I can find no examples of the lead scout POSTing any messages.
I posted the same message directly on the Pinoccio website and I got this answer from an Admin
Out of the gate, that's not supported via HQ. Mainly because to get as
real-time performance between API/HQ and a Lead Scout, it makes most
sense to leave a TCP socket open continually, and transfer data that
way. HTTP, as you know, requires a connection, setup, transfer, and
teardown upon each request.
However, doesn't mean you can't get it
working. In fact, you can do both if you wanted—leave the main TCP
socket connected to HQ, and have a separate TCP client socket connect
to any site/server you want and send whatever you like. It will
require a custom Bootstrap, but you can then expose any aspect of that
functionality to HQ/ScoutScript directly.
If you take a look at this code, that's the client object you'd use to open an HTTP connection.
So in a nutshell the lead scout cannot make a POST request. To do so you'll need to create a custom bootstrap (e.g. using the Arduino IDE).
I'm trying to implement a custom live chat program on the web, but I'm not sure how to handle the real-time (or near real-time) updates for users. Would it make more sense to send Ajax requests from the client side every second or so, polling the database for new comments?
Is there a way to somehow broadcast from the database each time a comment is added? If this is possible how would that work? I'm using Sql Server 2008 with Asp.net (c#).
Thanks!
Use long polling/server side push/comet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_(programming))
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_technology
I think when you use long polling you'll also want your web server to provide some support in the form of non-blocking io for requests, so that you aren't holding a thread per connection.
You could have each client poll the server, and at the server side keep the connection open without responding.
As soon there is a message detected at server side, this data is returned through the already open connection. On receipt, your client immediately issues a new request.
There's some complexity as you need to keep track server side which connections is associated with which session, and which should be responded upon to prevent timeouts.
I never actually did this but this should be the most resource efficient way.
Nope. use queuing systems like RabiitMq or ActiveMQ. Check mongoDB too.
A queuing system will give u a publish - subscribe facilities.
I have a tcpip socket interface to a third party software app. I've implemented this interface for several customer sites with no problem. The latest customer, though... problems. We've turned on logging in the apps on either end, and also installed Wireshark on the PC to log raw tcpip traffic. With that, we've proved that my server app successfully sends the message out, the pc receives the message, but the client app doesn't see it. (This is a totally intermittent problem, which is why it's such a pain to troubleshoot.)
The socket details are as simple as they come: one socket handling two way communications between the server and the pc. The messages are plain ascii text and fairly short (not XML). The server initiates communications by sending the first message, and then the client responds with several messages. The socket is kept open at all times while the apps are running. The client app is designed so that the end user can only process one case at a time, which prevents message collisions from happening. They have some sort of polling set up, their app "hibernates" until it sees the initiating message from the server.
The third party vendor has advised me to add a few second delay before I send them the initiating message. I can't see how that helps. If the client is "sleeping", just polling the socket waiting for a message, how does adding a delay before the first message help? It's not like we send two messages and the second one gets lost. It's losing the first message. So I don't see how it matters if we send that message now or two seconds from now.
I've asked them and they haven't given me details. It could be some proprietary details in their coding that they don't want to disclose to me, and that's fair. So I'm asking here because I'm always learning new things about socket programming. Maybe you guys can shed some light on how polling a tcpip socket can be affected by message timing?
Since its someone else's client and they won't tell you what its doing (other than saying 'insert a delay'), the answer is probably that their client is reading and discarding the message because its not yet in a state to deal with it. The delay will allow the client time to get into a state where it can respond to the message properly.
In other words, the client has a race condition. One easy way this can happen is if they have one thread for reading messages and another for dealing with them.
Short of running strace(1) on the client to see what system calls it is making, its tough to tell what the client is actually doing.