I was watching many presentations about Html 5 WebSockets , where server can initialize connection with client and push the data without the request from the client.
We don't need Polling etc.
And , I am curious , why Http was designed as a "pull" and not full duplex protocol in the first place ? What where the reasons behind that kind of decision ?
Because when http was first designed it was meant to be used to retrieve documents from a server. And the easiest way to do is when the client asks the server for a document and gets it delivered as response (or an error in case it does not exist). When you have push protocol that means the server would need to keep client connections around for potentially a long time creating more resource management problems - remember we are talking about early 1990s here.
Http was designed for simply retrieving hypertext documents from a server. There were no reasons to push anything to the client when the pages were just pure, static html without scripting capabilities.
Since there was no need at the time for pushing things back to the client, the protocol was kept simple.
HTTP is mainly a pull protocol—someone loads information on a Web server and
users use HTTP to pull the information from the server at their convenience. In particular,
the TCP connection is initiated by the machine that wants to receive the file.
Related
My backend generates log on processing some data and i would like to show it as a console in my frontend.
How can i implement a method that can listen to multiple response till a certain parameter is true from backend on a single http request in angular 6.
you can make use of WebSocket, i.e. make websocket connection with the your backend and get data, this is kind of push mechanism where server push data to on connection and client get data as new data is available in connection.
it not possible with help of single http request as it follows pull mechanism. so you will get data which are available. to get new data you have to perform another http request.
Unfortunately, an HTTP request cannot remain open listening for multiple responses, once it receives a response it will close the connection.
Fortunately, you can use websockets.
Implementing websockets is not too difficult, and there are many tutorials for implementing with Angular such as this one: https://tutorialedge.net/typescript/angular/angular-websockets-tutorial/
I'm not sure what back end technology you're using, but most modern ones have websocket support.
If you're not familiar with websockets in general, checkout this article: https://medium.com/#dominik.t/what-are-web-sockets-what-about-rest-apis-b9c15fd72aac
“WebSockets” is an advanced technology that allows real-time interactive communication between the client browser and a server. It uses a completely different protocol that allows bidirectional data flow, making it unique against HTTP.
The article also compares/contrasts it to HTTP, so it may give you a better understanding of HTTP as well.
I am working on a C# mobile application that requires major interaction with a PHP web server. However, the application also needs to support an "offline mode" as connection will be over a cellular network. This network may drop requests at random times. The problem that I have experienced with previous "Offline Mode" applications is that when a request results in a Timeout, the server may or may not have already processed that request. In cases where sending the request more than once would create a duplicate, this is a problem. I was walking through this and came up with the following idea.
Mobile sets a header value such as UniqueRequestID: 1 to be sent with the request.
Upon receiving the request, the PHP server adds the UniqueRequestID to the current user session $_SESSION['RequestID'][] = $headers['UniqueRequestID'];
Server implements a GetRequestByID that returns true if the id exists for the current session or false if not. Alternatively, this could returned the cached result of the request.
This seems to be a somewhat reliable way of seeing if a request successfully contacted the server. In mobile, upon re-connecting to the server, we check if the request was received. If so, skip that pending offline message and go to the next one.
Question
Have I reinvented the wheel here? Is this method prone to failure (or am I going down a rabbit hole)? Is there a better way / alternative?
-I was pitching this to other developers here and we thought that this seemed very simple implying that this "system" would likely already exist somewhere.
-Apologies if my Google skills are failing me today.
As you correctly stated, this problem is not new. There have been multiple attempts to solve it at different levels.
Transport level
HTTP transport protocol itself does not provide any mechanisms for reliable data transfer. One of the reasons is that HTTP is stateless and don't care much about previous requests and responses. There have been attempts by IBM to make a reliable transport protocol called HTTPR what was based on HTTP, but it never got popular. You can read more about it here.
Messaging level
Most Web Services out there still uses HTTP as a transport protocol and SOAP messaging protocol on top of it. SOAP over HTTP is not sufficient when an application-level messaging protocol must also guarantee some level of reliability and security. This is why WS-Reliability and WS-ReliableMessaging protocols where introduced. Those protocols allow SOAP messages to be reliably delivered between distributed applications in the presence of software component, system, or network failures. At the same time they provide additional security. You can read more about those protocols here and here.
Your solution
I guess there is nothing wrong with your approach if you need a simple way to ensure that message has not been already processed. I would recommend to use database instead of session to store processing result for each request. If you use $_SESSION['RequestID'][] you will run in to trouble if the session is lost (user is offline for specific time, server is restarted or has crashed, etc). Also, if you use database instead of session, you can scale-up easier later on just by adding extra web server.
Imagine I'm building an ordinary old website. Not a game, not a chat program, an ordinary website. Let's say it's a stack overflow clone.
The client side would simply make service calls to the server side. The server is essentially a dumb data store and never sends down HTML. The client handles all templating via javascript.
If I established a single websocket connection and did all requests through that, would I see a significant speedup over doing ajax requests?
The obvious advantage to using a single connection is that it only has to be established once. But how much time does that actually save? I know establishing a TCP connection can be costly, but in the grand scheme of things, does it matter?
I would not recommend websockets for webpages. HTTP 1.1 can reuse a TCP-connection for multiple requests, it's only HTTP 1.0 that had to use a new TCP connection for each request.
SPDY is probably a protocol that do what you are looking for. See SPDY: An experimental protocol for a faster web, but it's only supported by Chrome.
If you use websockets, the requests will not be cached.
One HTTP connection can only by used for one HTTP request at the same time. Say that a page requested a 100Kb document, nothing else will be send from the client to the server until that 100Kb document has been transferred. This is called head-of-line blocking. The client can establish an additional connection with the server, but there is also a limit on the amount of concurrent connections with the same server.
One of the primary reasons for developing SPDY and later HTTP/2 was solving this exact problem. However, support for SPDY and HTTP/2 is not yet as widespread as for WebSocket. WebSocket can get you there earlier because it supports multiple streams in full-duplex mode.
Once HTTP/2 is better supported it will be the preferred solution for this problem, but WebSocket will still be better for real-time web applications, where server needs to push data to the client.
Have a look at the N2O framework, it was created to address the problems I described above. In N2O WebSocket is used to send all assets associated with a page.
How much speed you could gain from using WebSocket instead of standard HTTP requests pretty much depends on your specific website: how often it requests data from the server, how big is a typical response, etc.
I'm designing a system that will need to move multi-GB backup images over TCP, and I'm looking at REST as an alternative to ONC RPC.
For example, I might have
POST http://site/backups/image1
where image1 is an 50GB file whose data is contained in the HTTP body.
My question: is this within the scope of what REST is meant for? Is it inappropriate to move massive files over HTTP? My preliminary testing shows that the performance isn't too bad, and I like the clean, debuggable protocol, as opposed to a custom ONC RPC server. But is this overloading the role of a webserver?
Thanks,
-Steve
HTTP has about the same overheads as FTP.
An HTTP server if often asked to do more work than an FTP server. But otherwise, using HTTP to send a large file is about the same as using FTP.
The only consideration is making sure your web server and web application framework are configured to do this kind of thing without needlessly expanding the entire 50Gb file inside Apache.
Steve,
HTTP has a look-before-you-leap 'feature' that allows the client to ask the server whether it will accept the data submission before it actually sends out the data. I'd look into using this to avoid transferring GBs of data only to find out that the server is currently not willing to handle them. Look at the HTTP Expect header and 100 Continue status codes.
Also, you can use FTP within a RESTful approach, IOW, think along the lines of
<backup-store href="ftp://example.org/site/backup/images/"/>
and make your clients understand the ftp URI scheme.
Finally, the T in HTTP means transfer and not transport - an important distinction to make because the former is an application semantic (HTTP is an application protocol) and the latter is a not.
HTH,
Jan
REST has nothing to do with how large your data is or which method you use to transport it.
Links to articles would also be appreciated--I don't know the terminology to search for.
I'm looking to learn how a web application can allow for server-to-client communications. I know the web was not designed for this and that it has been something of a hurdle, and am just wondering what the state of this is, and what the best practices are.
An alternative is constant or occasional polling via ajax, but is it possible for web servers to maintain stateful connections to a web client?
Edit: Another way to ask this question is how does StackOverflow tell a page that new posts are available for it to display that little bar at the top?
StackOverflow polls the server to check if there is more data.
What you're looking for is Comet.
To get true two way communications from a browser you need to use a plugin technology like Silverlight, Flash, et al. Those plugins can create TCP connections that can establish a two way persistent connection with a server socket. Note that you can't really establish the TCP connection with the HTTP server so you'd have to create an additional server agent to do the communicating back to the browser.
Basically it's a completely differnet deployment model to what AJAX sites like Stackoverflow, Gmail etc. use. They all rely on the browser polling the server at set intervals.
Web browsers really aren't set up to handle this sort of communication. The communication is a one way street where the web server is listening on a port (typically 80 or 443) for for information to be sent to it.
I just read the link on comet, and it's interesting approach, but what has to be remembered is that it is still technically being opened by the client. The server is sending code for it to execute, but the browser is ultimately in control and determines when the server communicates with it.
With today's web browsers the server can never technically execute a message being sent to it without the help of the browser. Technically you might be able to get around that by executing some Active X control on the client machine...but I haven't tried it.
You can't, HTTP is stateless. A long time ago Netscape implemented HTTP Push but it wasn't a sucess.
I'd use polling with a web service or similar; no plugin (that is Flash, Java,Silverlight) will have rights in its sandbox to use raw sockets so it'll be a waste of time trying to implement it that way.