Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
If I have a separate system with its own concept of users and presence, what is the most appropriate architecture for creating a bridge to an XMPP server network? As far as I can tell there are three primary ways:
Act as a server. This creates one touchpoint, but I fear it has implications for compatibility, and potentially creates complexity in my system for emulating a server.
Act as a clients. This seems to imply that I need one connection per user in my system, which just isn't going to scale well.
I've heard of an XMPP gateway protocol, but it's unclear if this is any better than the client solution. I also can't tell if this is standard or not.
Any suggestions or tradeoffs would be appreciated. For example, would any of these solutions require running code inside the target XMPP server (not likely something I can do).
The XMPP gateway protocol you've heard of is most likely to do with transports. A transport is a server that connects to both a XMPP server and a non-XMPP server. By running a transport, I can use my Jabber client to talk to someone using, say, MSN Messenger.
A transport typically connects once to the remote network for each JID that it sees as online. That is, it's your option 2 in reverse. This is because there is no special relationship between the transport and the non-XMPP network; the transport is simply acting as a bunch of regular clients. For this to work, XMPP clients must first register with the transport, giving login credentials for the remote network, and allowing the transport to view their presence.
The only reason this has a chance of scaling better is that there can be many transports for the same remote network. For example, my Jabber server could run a transport to MSN, another Jabber server could run another one, and so on, each one providing connections for a different subset of XMPP users. While this spreads out the load on the Jabber side, and load balancing on your system may spread out the load as well, it still requires many connections between the two systems.
In your case, because (I assume) the non-XMPP side of things is cooperating, putting a XMPP server interface on the non-XMPP server is likely your best bet. That server interface is best suited for managing the mapping between XMPP JIDs and how that JID will appear on its own network, rather than forcing XMPP users to register and so on.
In case you haven't seen these, you might find them useful:
http://www.jabber.org/jabber-for-geeks/technology-overview
http://www.xmpp.org/protocols/
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/
Hope that helps.
I too am working on a similar system.
I am going with the gateway/component route. I have looked at several options and settled with this one.
The gateway is basically a component with the specific purpose of bridging Jabber/XMPP with another network. You will have to build most of the things you take for granted when using XMPP as a client. Stuff like roster control.
There is very little help online on the actual design and building of a component. Like the above answer I found that the xmpp protocols/extensions to be of help. The main ones being:
Basic Client 2008
Basic Server 2008
Intermediate Client 2008
Intermediate Server 2008
Reading through these will show you what XEPs you will be expected to be able to handle. Ignore the stuff that will be handled by the server that your component will be attched to.
It's a shame that Djabberd has such poor documentation as their system of "everything is a module" gave the possibility of backend of the server could interface directly to the other network. I made no headway on this.
There are basically two types of server to server (s2s) connections. The first is either called a gateway or a transport, but they're the same thing. This is probably the kind you're looking for. I couldn't find specific documentation for the non-XMPP side, but how XMPP thinks about doing translations to legacy servers is at http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0100.html. The second kind really isn't explained in any additional XEPs -- it's regular XMPP s2s connections. Look for "Server-to-Server Communication" in RFC 3920 or RFC 3920bis for the latest draft update.
Since you have your own users and presence on your server, and it's not XMPP, the concepts aren't going to map completely to the XMPP model. This is where the work of the transport comes in. You have to do the translation from your model to the XMPP model. While this is some work, you do get to make all the decisions.
Which brings us right to one of the key design choices -- you need to really decide which things you are going to map to XMPP from your service and what you aren't. These feature and use case descriptions will drive the overall structure. For example, is this like a transport to talk to AOL or MSN chat services? Then you'll need a way to map their equivalent of rosters, presence, and keep session information along with logins and passwords from your local users to the remote server. This is because your transport will need to pretend to be those users and will need to login for them.
Or, maybe you're just an s2s bridge to someone else's XMPP based chess game, so you don't need a login on the remote server, and can just act similarly to an email server and pass the information back and forth. (With normal s2s connections the only session that would be stored would be SASL authentication used with the remote server, but at the user level s2s just maintains the connection, and not the login session.)
Other factors are scalability and modularity on your end. You nailed some of the scalability concerns. Take a look at putting in multiple transports to balance the load. For modularity, see where you want to make decisions about what to do with each packet or action. For example, how do you handle and keep track of subscription data? You can put it on your transport, but then that makes using multiple transports harder. Or if you make that decision closer to your core server you can have simpler transports and use some common code if you need to talk to services other than XMPP. The trade off is a more complex core server with more vulnerability potential.
What architecture you should use depends on the non-XMPP system.
Do you operate the non-XMPP system? If yes, you should find a way to add an XMPP-S2S interface to that system, in other words, make it act as an XMPP server. AOL is using this approach for AIM. Unfortunately, they have restricted their gateway to GoogleTalk.
You don't operate the non-XMPP system but it has a federation interface that you can use - i. e. your gateway can talk to the other system as a server and has a namespace of its own. In this case, you can build a gateway that acts as a federated server on both sides. For I don't know of any example of a gateway that uses this approach but you could use it if you want to build a public XMPP-to-SIP bridge.
If the non-XMPP system doesn't give you a federation interface, then you have no other option but acting as a bunch of clients. In the XMPP world, this is called a "transport". The differences between a transport and a normal server are basically:
the JIDs of the transport are mapped from another system (e.g. john.doe\40example.net#msngateway.example.org - really ugly!)
XMPP users who want to use the transport need to create an account on the non-XMPP system and give the login credentials of that account to the transport service. The XMPP protocol even has a protocol extension that allows XMPP users to do transport registrations in-band.
One other approach is to work with your XMPP server vendor. Most have internal APIs that make injecting presence possible from third party applications. For example, Jabber XCP provides an API for this that's really easy to use.
(Disclosure: I work for Jabber, Inc, the company behind Jabber XCP)
Related
I want to create a program for my desktop and an app for my android. Both of them will do the same, just on those different devices. They will be something like personal assistants, so I want to put a lot of data into them ( for example contacts, notes and a huge lot of other stuff). All of this data should be saved on a server (at least for the beginning I will use my own Ubuntu server at home).
For the android app I will obviously use java and the database on the server will be a MySQL database, because that's the database I have used for everything. The Windows program will most likely be written in of these languages: Java, C#c C++, as these are the languages I am able to use quite well.
Now to the problem/question: The server should have a good backend which will be communicating with the apps/programs and read/write data in the database, manage the users and all that stuff. But I am not sure how I should approach programming the backend and the "network communication" itself. I would really like to have some relatively easy way to send secured messages between server and clients, but I have no experience in that matter. I do have programming experience in general, but not with backend and network programming.
side notes:
I would like to "scale big". At first this system will only be used by me, but it may be opened to more people or even sold.
Also I would really like to a (partly) self programmed backend on the server, because I could very well use this for a lot of other stuff, like some automation features in my house, which will be implemented.
EDIT: I would like to be able to scale big. I don't need support for hundreds of people at the beginning ;)
You need to research Socket programming. They provide relatively easy, secured network communication. Essentially, you will create some sort of connection or socket listener on your server. The clients will create Sockets, initialize them to connect to a certain IP address and port number, and then connect. Once the server receives these connections, the server creates a Socket for that specific connection, and the two sockets can communicate back and forth.
If you want your server to be able to handle multiple clients, I suggest creating a new Thread every time the server receives a connection, and that Thread will be dedicated to that specific client connection. Having a multi-threaded server where each client has its own dedicated Thread is a good starting point for an efficient server.
Here are some good C# examples of Socket clients and servers: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/w89fhyex(v=vs.110).aspx
As a side note, you can also write Android apps in C# with Xamarin. If you did your desktop program and Android app both in C#, you'd be able to write most of the code once and share it between the two apps easily.
I suggest you start learning socket programming by creating very simple client and server applications in order to grasp how they will be communicating in your larger project. Once you can grasp the communication procedures well enough, start designing your larger project.
But I am not sure how I should approach programming the backend and
the "network communication" itself.
Traditionally, a server for your case would be a web server exposing REST API (JSON). All clients need to do http requests and render/parse JSON. REST API is mapped to database calls and exposes some data model. If it was in Java, it would be Jetty web server, Jackson Json parser.
I would really like to have some relatively easy way to send secured
messages between server and clients,
Sending HTTP requests probably the easiest way to communicate with a service. Having it secured is a matter of enabling HTTPS on the server side and implementing some user access authentication and action authorization. Enabling HTTPS with Jetty for Java will require few lines of code. Authentication is usually done via OAuth2 technique, and authorization could be based on ACL. You may go beyond of this and enable encryption of data at rest and employ other practices.
I would like to "scale big". At first this system will only be used by
me, but it may be opened to more people or even sold.
I would like to be able to scale big. I don't need support for
hundreds of people at the beginning
I anticipate scalability can become the main challenge. Depending on how far you want to scale, you may need to go to distributed (Big Data) databases and distributed serving and messaging layers.
Also I would really like to a (partly) self programmed backend on the
server, because I could very well use this for a lot of other stuff,
like some automation features in my house, which will be implemented.
I am not sure what you mean self-programmed. Usually a backend encapsulates some application specific business logic.
It could be a piece of logic between your database and http transport layer.
In more complicated scenario your logic can be put into asynchronous service behind the backend, so the service can do it's job without blocking clients' requests.
And in the most (probably) complicated scenario your backend may do machine learning (for example, if you would like you software stack to learn your home-being habits and automate house accordingly to your expectations without actually coding this automation)
but I have no experience in that matter. I do have programming
experience in general, but not with backend and network programming.
If you can code, writing a backend is not very hard problem. There are a lot of resources. However, you would need time (or money) to learn and to do it, what may distract you from the development of your applications or you may enjoy it.
The alternative to in-house developed of a backend could be a Backend-as-a-Service (BaaS) in cloud or on premises. There are number of product in this market. BaaS will allow you to eliminate the development of the backend entirely (or close to this). At minimum it should do:
REST API to data storage with configurable data model,
security,
scalability,
custom business-logic
Disclaimer: I am a member of webintrinsics.io team, which is a Backend-as-a-Service. Check our website and contact if you need to, we will be able to work with you and help you either with BaaS or with guiding you towards some useful resources.
Good luck with your work!
I'm not sure if I'm asking the question properly. I'm referring to locally installed software, often called an "Agent" that keeps in regular communication with some host via HTTP. e.g. When you install LogMeIn, the Agent keeps in communication with the logmein.com server so that when you visit logmein.com with your web browser and connect to the agent, the server is able to initiate communication. The Agent, however, isn't a webserver, nor are any ports forwarded to the Agent. So, is the Agent constantly polling the server asking like a broken record, "Can I help you? Can I help you? Can I help you?" Or is the http connection from Agent to server somehow kept open? I know you can keep an http connection open, but A) how, and B) for how long? Does the Agent need to act like a less annoying broken record asking, "Can I help you? Yet? Yet? Yet?" with much more time in between each question? Or can the Agent ask once and wait indefinitely, asking again only once it learns that the connection has been dropped?
Bottom line is, I'd like to create a small little sample program for trying my hand at writing a client/server application that communicates via the Internet using HTTP. Either side needs to be able to initiate commands / requests. The Agent would likely communicate with the Server using some sort of API, perhaps RESTful. When I start the experiment, I'll be using Perl. It'd be fun to create a Hello World project that would have samples in many languages for many platforms how to write the agent and how to communicate with the server. The agent code would do client side things (e.g. determine public IP address) and send the data to the server. The server would act on the data (e.g. store IP address in a database). The server might also initiate a command to the Agent (e.g. Hey, Agent! What's your CPU type?) Proper authentication / authorization between Agent and Server is of course a necessity.
Are there any existing projects to model off of? Any existing documents? Perhaps I'm just missing terminology and if I just knew that everything I was asking can be summarized by the term foo, then the doors would be opened wide for what I could find in searches!
I looked into the code of Ubuntu's Landscape. It uses Python's Twister -- a web server for HTML5 Websockets. So I'd say what I was looking for in an answer is Websockets (bi-directional communication). That now has opened up a wealth of options, node.js, twister, mojolicious, and many many more as web servers. Turns out using Ajax to poll every few seconds is a very bad idea -- an overwhelming slam on web servers. Keep the connection open.
Ok I tried going to jabbers site, and it looks like cisco has acquired them.
Is jabber a server or a client? is it open source?
From what I guess, the steps are:
install the jabber server on your server
for a web application, creating a interface that will insert/select messages from the jabber server. I'm guessing communication will be in some xml format?
Jabber is the same thing as XMPP. The canonical place to find out about jabber is www.xmpp.org. They host all the documentation about the protocol. If you just want to use it, jabber.org hosts a free jabber server you can connect to, and is a great place to try it out. Psi (psi-im.org) is a good free client to try out the system.
The jabber protocol is a bit like smtp for instant messaging (IM). Servers federate (talk to each other) and the protocol is plain text, and defined in several RFCs. There are both client and server pieces of the protocol.
As you discovered, jabber.com (Jabber, Inc) was purchsed by Cisco. Jabber, Inc sold a proprietary jabber server (XCP) with great scalability that used the defined RFC protocols. There are several other servers out there, some free, some not. They all can communicate, which is the cool thing. Or not communicate, which is also cool.
I recommend trying out jabber clients, finding an active chat room (called MUC, multi user chat) and see where that takes you. If you're a developer you can use XMPP for any presence enabled thing. It's very extensible.
Oh, if you've used gtalk, you've used jabber. It's popular, open, and not tied to any one particular company.
I'm making a network game (1v1) where in-game its p2p - no need for a game server.
However, for players to be able to "find each other", without the need to coordinate in another medium and enter IP addresses (similar to the modem days of network games), I need to have a coordination/matching server.
I can't use regular web hosting because:
The clients will communicate in UDP.
Therefore I'll need to do UDP Hole Punching to be able to go through the NAT
That would require the server to talk in UDP and know the client's IP and port
afaik with regular web hosting (php/etc) I can only get the client's IP address and can only communicate in TCP (HTTP).
Options I am currently considering:
Use a hosting solution where my program can accept UDP connection. (any recommendations?)
UDPonNAT seems to do this but uses GTalk and requires each client to have a GTalk account for this (which probably makes it an unsuitable solution)
Any ideas? Thanks :)
First, let me say that this is well out of my realm of expertise, but I found myself very interested, so I've been doing some searching and reading.
It seems that the most commonly prescribed solution for UDP NAT traversal is to use a STUN server. I did some quick searches to see if there are any companies that will just straight-up provide you with a STUN hosting solution, but if there even were any, they were buried in piles of ads for simple web hosting.
Fortunately, it seems there are several STUN servers that are already up and running and free for public use. There is a list of public STUN servers at voip-info.org.
In addition, there is plenty more information to be had if you explore SO questions tagged "nat".
I don't see any other choice than to have a dedicated server running your code. The other solutions you propose are, shall we say, less than optimal.
If you start small, virtual hosting will be fine. Costs are pretty minimal.
Rather than a full-blown dedicated server, you could just get a cheap shared hosting service and have the application interface with a PHP page, which in turn interfaces with a MySQL database backend.
For example, Lunarpages has a $3/month starter package that includes 5gb of space and 50gb of bandwidth. For something this simple, that's all you should need.
Then you just have your application poll the web page for the list of games, and submit a POST request in order to add their own game to the list.
Of course, this method requires learning PHP and MySQL if you don't already know them. And if you do it right, you can have the PHP page enter a sort of infinite loop to keep the connection open and just feed updates to the client, rather than polling the page every few seconds and wasting a lot of bandwidth. That's way outside the scope of this answer though.
Oh, and if you're looking for something absolutely free, search for a free PHP host. Those exist too! Even with an ad-supported host, your app could just grab the page and ignore the ads when you parse the list of games. I know that T35 used to be one of my favorites because their free plan doesn't track space or bandwidth (it limits the per-file size, to eliminate their service being used as a media share, but it shouldn't be a problem for PHP files). But of course, I think in the long run you'll be better off going with a paid host.
Edit: T35 also says "Free hosting allows 1 domain to be hosted, while paid offers unlimited domain hosting." So you can even just pay for a domain name and link it to them! I think in the short term, that's your best (cheapest) bet. Of course, this is all assuming you either know or are willing to learn PHP in order to make this happen. :)
There's nothing that every net connection will support. STUN is probably good, UPnP can work for this.
However, it's rumored that most firewalls can be enticed to pass almost anything through UDP port 53 (DNS). You might have to argue with the OS about your access to that port though.
Also, check out SIP, it's another protocol designed for this sort of thing. With the popularity of VOIP, there may be decent built-in support for this in more firewalls.
If you're really committed to UDP, you might also consider tunneling it over HTTP.
how about you break the problem into two parts - make a game matcher client (that is distinct from the game), which can communicate via http to your cheap/shared webhost. All gamers who wants to use the game matching function use this. THe game matcher client then launches the actual game with the correct parameters (IP, etc etc) after obtaining the info from your server.
The game will then use the standard way to UDP punch thru NAT, etc etc, as per your network code. The game dont actually need to know anything about the matcher client or matcher server - in the true sense of p2p (like torrents, once you can obtain your peer's IPs, you can even disconnect from the tracker).
That way, your problems become smaller.
An intermediate solution between hosting your own dedicated server and a strictly P2P networking environment is the gnutella model. In that model, there are superpeers that act like local servers, having known IP addresses and being connected to (and thus having knowledge of) more clients than a typical peer. This still requires you to run at least one superpeer yourself, but it gives you the option to let other people run their own superpeers.
I'm developing a multi-player game and I know nothing about how to connect from one client to another via a server. Where do I start? Are there any whizzy open source projects which provide the communication framework into which I can drop my message data or do I have to write a load of complicated multi-threaded sockety code? Does the picture change at all if teh clients are running on phones?
I am language agnostic, although ideally I would have a Flash or Qt front end and a Java server, but that may be being a bit greedy.
I have spent a few hours googling, but the whole topic is new to me and I'm a bit lost. I'd appreciate help of any kind - including how to tag this question.
If latency isn't a huge issue, you could just implement a few web services to do message passing. This would not be a slow as you might think, and is easy to implement across languages. The downside is the client has to poll the server to get updates. so you could be looking at a few hundred ms to get from one client to another.
You can also use the built in flex messaging interface. There are provisions there to allow client to client interactions.
Typically game engines send UDP packets because of latency. The fact is that TCP is just not fast enough and reliability is less of a concern than speed is.
Web services would compound the latency issues inherent in TCP due to additional overhead. Further, they would eat up memory depending on number of expected players. Finally, they have a large amount of payload overhead that you just don't need (xml anyone?).
There are several ways to go about this. One way is centralized messaging (client/server). This means that you would have a java server listening for udp packets from the clients. It would then rebroadcast them to any of the relevant users.
A second way is decentralized (peer to peer). A client registers with the server to state what game / world it's in. From that it gets a list of other clients in that world. The server maintains that list and notifies the other clients of people who join / drop out.
From that point forward clients broadcast udp packets directly to the other users.
If you look for communication framework with high performance try look at ACE C++ framework (it has Java bindings).
Official web-site is: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE-overview.html
You could also look into Flash Media Interactive Server, or if you want a Java implementation, Wowsa or Red5. Those use AMF and provide native functionality for ShareObjects including synching of the ShareObjects among connected clients.
Those aren't peer to peer though (yet, it's coming soon I hear). They use centralized messaging managed by the server.
Good luck