Im on the verge to decide which way to go. On one side i have jWebsocket framework which offers me fast startup with javascript - java (client-server) integration, and on the other is to use pure socket.io (client) with c# websockets (http://alchemywebsockets.net/).
My purpose is not to advertize, however i need some thoughts on this before i start a project that requires REAL TIME information displaying(broadcast included) on the browser and i need to handle big chunks of data so i suppose opening multiple websockets on a server will do the job for me ?
P.s.
I will have maximum 10clients at the same time connected.
The SockJS library is a good choice for in-browser WebSocket client. It automatically supports fallback to variety of browser-specific transport protocols.
If you decide for Java on the server side, then I'd recommend Spring Framework 4 (here's an introduction) which nears it's GA release (I think we'll see it before the new year) and has WebSocket and STOMP support built in.
Related
I'm trying to create a new application from the ground up. I've used SignalR and WebAPI. I believe I know a lot of the differences, but isn't SignalR faster since it uses websockets? WebAPI makes sense to me for external frameworks to be able to reuse. SignalR makes sense to me for anything I'm not necessarily going to use externally. I've done some research and I can't find anywhere it says you shouldn't. I realize this is somewhat opinion-based, but why would you use a mix of the two rather than just SignalR?
I think what I'm mostly asking is if it is wrong to use SignalR to send back to the caller, except in cases where I would send to other clients on that channel? To me SignalR can be used like WebAPI when you are just sending back to the client. Is that wrong to do? It is less code for the client calls(2 lines vs 6 or more, depending on what I'm doing with it). My thinking is I may be trying to manipulate data and send it to the caller now, but maybe I want to send it to all clients later or send a notification to all clients. I'm not a fan of using signalR calls in my webApi controllers. It just feels like the signalR calls should be in the Hub. Thanks for your help.
There is no reason why you shouldn't use them together because they target two different problems. Web-API is a means of making web services easy to target by many different kind of apps/devices whereas SignalR offers bi-directional communications in a way that the Server can call a piece of code on the client without the client having to keep polling the server for results.
E.g. Instead of having a client keep asking the Server for any new messages (like facebook notifications) with SignalR the server knows that there are new notifications for a specific client and it can send them directly without the client having to ask for them.
http://www.asp.net/web-api
ASP.NET Web API is a framework that makes it easy to build HTTP
services that reach a broad range of clients, including browsers and
mobile devices. ASP.NET Web API is an ideal platform for building
RESTful applications on the .NET Framework.
http://www.asp.net/signalr
ASP.NET SignalR is a new library for ASP.NET developers that makes
developing real-time web functionality easy. SignalR allows
bi-directional communication between server and client. Servers can
now push content to connected clients instantly as it becomes
available. SignalR supports Web Sockets, and falls back to other
compatible techniques for older browsers. SignalR includes APIs for
connection management (for instance, connect and disconnect events),
grouping connections, and authorization.
A potential problem is that while SignalR is great at targeting JavaScript code on a client, Web-Api enables connectivity with all sorts of platforms and devices. So the same techniques used through SignalR to target Web Browsers, will not necessarily work on a native Android App.
You can use them together depending on your application needs. I recommend you look at difference between HTTP and WebSockets protocols. WebApi uses HTTP(S), SignalR mostly WebSockets and in some cases others transports. They both have benefits and disadvantages. The main benefits of using SignalR are duplex bidirectional communication as mentioned above and low traffic overheads. Browsers send as a rule a few KB data in HTTP headers and cookies for every request.
It’s easier to use RESTfull services (HTTP) from browsers, HTTP clients, tools, languages and so on instead of using WebSockets. Google Chrome supports monitoring WebSockets traffic but very poorly and Microsoft Edge doesn’t.
Many tools like Google Analytics and Microsoft Azure Application Insights can monitor errors in HTTP requests but can’t do this for WebSockets. You need to implement monitoring manually. Actually WebSockets traffic is simple messages from client to server and vise versa, no additional information. SignalR has some wrappers for this - some kind of error message format.
WebSockets also use more server resources because of keeping open TCP connection and it’s harder to scale web applications that use WebSockets. For instance if you have 100K online users it means you have to be able to keep 100K TCP connections. For HTTP – not necessary. For some very simple sceneries you can replace SignalR with some kind of client polling, but be careful that’s approach may bring a lot of problems.
So, If you don’t need bidirectional communication and traffic overhead (as a rule a few KB per request) is not a big deal then use WebApi only.
If you need bidirectional communication you can use SignalR for server to client push notifications and WebApi for client to server requests simply to ease development, scaling, debugging and using API from other sources. But you also can use SignalR only if you are ok with disadvantages of it or traffic overhead is big for you.
I am interested in deploying a server to GoDaddy as a C# web application, then have desktop clients developed in C# and Java be able to subscribe/publish to the server using WebSockets (RFC 6455).
WebSocket supported libraries I am looking at are XSockets.Net and SignalR.
I am not able to find anything on using XSockets.Net (not to be confused with XSocket.org) in Java. I understand that XSockets targets MS .Net framework and Mono environments. However, looking at SignalR, there is also SignalA which is a Java based SignalR client for Android.
Thinking-out-loud... I understand there are many WebSocket libraries for Java, which suggests the idea that if I am able to publish a message (using WebSocket) from a Java application to a server, then I should be able to read it and processes it in C#, since WebSocket protocol is a standard.
Thus far, I believe a SignalR solution will satisfy my requirement to allow C# & Java applications to talk on the Web, but due to transport requirments of SignalR, my communication will not utilize WebSockets. Reading through SignalR requirements, to get WebSockets transport activated I must use Windows8+ with .Net Framework for 4.5+. GoDaddy does not use Windows8 for windows hosting, and even if it did, then all my clients must also use Windows8, which is not a guarentee.
So the question is: How can I get C# & Java desktop clients to talk on the web via WebSockets, othan than using SignalR and XSockets.Net?
Any help is very much appreciated!
EDIT: I will now look into deploying a C# XSockets.NET Server and have a C# XSockets.NET client and a Java JWebSocket client since both JWebSockets and XSockets support the WebSocket RFC6455 protocol. I will post my findings here and close this question if that was a successful effort.
You can implement a RFC6455 client in any language and use XSockets. However do note that XSockets uses a publish/subscribe pattern that you will have to implement as well to take benefit of the platform.
The upside is that you actually wont have to implement RFC6455 since you can implement a custom (non websocket protocol) and use that when communicating from desktop (or anything else). Since everything in XSockets is a plugin you can add custom protocols and still communicate with client talking RFC6455 since XSockets will offer cross-protocol communication.
So the thing you have to implement is actually only the publish/subscribe functionality in the java client.
There are probably not any Java clients out there that implements the IXSocketClient interface today, and we focused on Mono instead of Java when covering multi-platform support.
We will help you out in any way we can if you decide to write your own java implementation.
Note: as of the next version (not far away) it will be very easy to implement your custom protocol and connect from any device talking TCP/IP
In my humble opinion, you have misunderstood some things.
XSockets and SignalR are libraries which are totally oriented to a specific platform, .NET. They both wrap the functionality of WebSockets, a platform independent standard, to ease its use. This does not by anyway mean that you could use XSocket, or SignalR libraries in all platforms.
I suppose that creating a java client for XSockets or SignalR would be an overkill and would lead you to heavily depend on a 3rd party library. In your situation, I would go on with using WebSockets directly on my server side. Then I would use a library handling the WebSockets standard for each client, which could be different for each client development platform. Therefore, you would depend on one universal standard and you would minimize dependencies on 3rd party libraries.
Hope I helped!
I am currently in the planning stages for a fairly comprehensive rewrite of one of our core (commercial) software offerings, and I am looking for a bit of advice.
Our current software is a business management package written in Winforms (originally in .NET 2.0, but has transitioned into 4.0 so far) that communicates directly with a SQL Server backend. There is also a very simple ASP.NET Webforms website that provides some basic functionality for users on the road. Each of our customers has to expose this site (and a couple of existing ASMX web services) to the world in order to make use of it, and we're beginning to outgrow this setup.
As we rewrite this package, we have decided that it would be best if we made the package more accessible from the outside, as well as providing our customers with the option of allowing us to host their data (we haven't decided on a provider) rather than requiring them to host SQL Server, SQL Server Reporting Services, and IIS on the premises.
Right now, our plan is to rewrite the existing Winforms application using WPF, as well as provide a much richer client experience over the web. Going forward, however, our customers have expressed an interest in using tablets, so we're going to need to support iOS and Android native applications as clients, as well.
The combination of our desire to offer off-site hosting (without having to use a VPN architecture) and support clients on platforms that are outside of the .NET ecosystem has led us to the conclusion that all of our client-server communication should take place through our own service rather than using the SQL Server client (since we don't want to expose that to the world and SQL Server drivers do not exist, to my knowledge, for some of those platforms).
Right now, our options as I see them are:
Write a completely custom service that uses TCP sockets and write everything (authentication, session management, serialization, etc.) from scratch. This is what I know the most about, but my assumption is that there's something better.
Use a WCF service for transport, and either take care of authentication and/or session management myself, or use something like durable services for session management
My basic question is this:
What would be the most appropriate choice of overall architecture, as well as specific features like ASP.NET authentication or Durable Services, to provide a stateful, persistent service to WPF, ASP.NET, iOS, and Android clients?
(I am working on the assumption that by "stateful" you mean session-based).
I guess one big question is: Do you want to use SOAP in your messaging stack?
You may be loathe to, as often there is no out-of-box support for SOAP on mobile platforms (see: How to call a web service with Android). No doubt its similarly painful with iOS. Calling SOAP from a browser ("ASP.NET") can't be fun. I'm not even sure its possible!
Unfortunately if you aren't using SOAP, then that quickly rules out most of WCFs standard Bindings. Of the one that remains, "Web HTTP", sessions are not supported because obviously HTTP is a stateless protocol. You can actually add session support by hand using a solution based on Cookies.
You could use the TCP transport (it supports sessions), and build you own channel stack to support a non-SOAP encoding (for example protocol-buffers), but even then you need to be careful because the TCP transport places special 'framing' bytes in it, so that would make interop non-trivial.
What sort of state do you need to store in your sessions? Maybe there are alternative approaches?
1) consider stateful utility services using singletons, but keep the request/response pattern at the facade level stateless.
2) consider distributed caching, perhaps Windows Server AppFabric Cache.
I have been doing research for a few months now on the possibility of client-server communication. I have experimented with many methods such as WebORB and FluorineFX, which are both servers designed to deal with client/server authentication.
WebORB only runs on Windows for their .NET version as far as I can tell, and I would much rather use an open source system. I have tried using FluorineFX, but I think their must be a simpler way for me to build my own simple system from the ground up.
I have been using Dropbox for a while now, and I like the way that the client-server communication is instant. As far as I can tell (from some Google searches) the client doesn't open a port of its own, and just communicates with the Dropbox server through port 80. An example of its instant communication is where you may delete a file on Dropbox on their website, and instantly the server communicates with the client telling it what has happened. I don't know how this instant communication is possible without opening a port.
I can create a system that uses fetching from the client, asking the server every 10 seconds or so to see if there are any updates, but I would like a method to be able to push the information from the server to the client.
My server runs Linux so I don't think I can use WCF, and ideally I am looking for a way to make PHP and C# communicate with each other.
I would love to hear any advice that anyone has and how they deal with the problem.
Cheers.
You CAN use WCF to communicate with any platform. Just make sure you're using an endpoint which your target machine support: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms733107.aspx
Have you tried the good old .NET Remoting which runs perfectly with Mono?
You can choose between a TcpChannel (for performance) and a HttpChannel (to pass proxy/firewall easily).
For push notifications, you can open a connection to your server and wait for an answer indefinitely.
I would like to have a client-server application written in .NET which would do following:
server is running Linux
on the server there is SQL database (mySQL) containing document URLs
What we want:
- server side would regularly crawl all URLs and create a full text index for them
- client side would be able to perform a query into this index using GUI
The client application is written in .NET using C#. Besides of searching in documents it will be able to do a lot of other things which are not described here and which are done client-side very well.
We would like to use C# for the server side as well, but we have no experience in this area. How are things like this usually done?
Clarifying question now based on some answers:
The thing which is most unclear to me is how client-server communication is usually handled. Is client and server usually using sockets, caring about details like IP addresses, ports or NAT traversal? Or are there some common frameworks and patters, which would make this transparent, and make client-server messaging or procedure calling easy? Any examples or good starting points for this? Are there some common techniques how to handle the fact a single server is required to server multiple clients at the same time?
To use c# on Linux you will need to use Mono. This is an open source implementation of the CLR specification.
Next you need to decide on how to communicate between server and client, from the lowest level of just opening a TCP/IP socket and sending bits up and down, to .Net remoting, to WCF, to exposing webservices on the server. I do not know how compleat WCF implementation is on mono, also I think you may have issue with binary remoting between mono and MS .Net .
I would suggest RPC style WebServices offer a very good solution. WebServices also have the advantage of alowing clients from other platforms to connect easily.
EDIT
In response to the clarification of the question.
I would suggest using mono/ASP.NET/WebServices on the server, if you wish to use c# on both server and client.
One assumption I have made is that you can do a client pull model, where every message is initiated by the client. Using another approach could allow the server to push events to the client. Given the client has the ability to pole the server regularly I don't consider this much of a draw back but it may be depending on the type of application you are developing.
Mono allow execution of c# (compiled to IL) on a Linux box. Mono ASP.NET allows you to use the standard ASP.NET and integrate into Apache see http://www.mono-project.com/ASP.NET and finally WebServices allow you to communicate robustly in a strongly typed manner between you client and your server.
Using this approach negates most of the issues raised in your clarification and makes them someone else's problem.
Sockets/SSL - is taken care of by standard .Net runtime on the client and Apache on the server.
IPAddress/ports/NAT traversal - Is all taken care of. DNS look up will get the servers IP. Open socket will allow the server to respond through any firewall and NAT setup.
Multiple Clients - Apache is built to handle multiple clients processing at the same time as is ASP.NET, so you should not encounter any problems there.
As many have already mentioned there are a number of thing that you have mentioned which are going to cause you pain. I'm not going to go into those, instead I will answer your original question about communication.
The current popular choice in this kind of communication is web services. These allow you to make remote calls using the HTTP protocol, and encoding the requests and responses in XML. While this method has its critics I have found it incredibly simple to get up and running, and works fine for nearly all applications.
The .NET framework has built in support for web services which can definitely be called by your client. A brief look at the mono website indicates that it has support for web services also, so writing your server in C# and running it under mono should be fine. Googling for "C# Web Service Tutorial" shows many sites which have information about how to get started, here is a random pick from those results:
http://www.codeguru.com/Csharp/Csharp/cs_webservices/tutorials/article.php/c5477
have a look at Grasshopper:
"With Grasshopper, you can use your favorite development environment from Microsoft® to deploy applications on Java-enabled platforms such as Linux"
Or see here
The ideea is to convert your app to Java and then run it on Tomcat or JBoss.
Another approach: use the Mod_AspDotNet module for Apache, as described here.
This Basic Client/Server Chat Application in C# looks like a kind of example which might be a starting point for me. Relevant .NET classes are TcpClient and TcpListener