I know there is some debate as to whether HTTP is strictly connection-oriented or connectionless. AFAIK, HTTP only maintains a connection long enough to transmit the series of immediate requests. Recently, a microsoft certified architect and I were discussing a method to broadcast updates to a "connected" clients.
Imagine a game of checkers. If player1 makes a move, player2 needs to be notified. With HTTP (no TCP/UDP), the only method I am aware of is to poll. The architect disagreed with me.
So, how can you send updates to "connected" clients using solely HTTP?
There are currently 2 solutions for this:
WebSockets provide a true callback, but are not widely adopted
Use a Comet implementation (such as WebSync). This uses polling.
At the HTTP level, you can stream data that the client can pick up on, by not specifying a Content-Length or closing the connection.
Some clients/servers have a "no data" timeout though so sending a periodic keepalive is a good idea.
Replies need to be in another HTTP request though.
An extension to the stream is the client making a connection and the server not sending any data until there is something ready. The client then processes the reply and immediatly connects again for the next chunk.
Related
I'm making a program that requires to make multiple connection on my website and keep it open for a few hours! So, let's say I want to make 300-500 connections and keep them up for 5 hours, if I use threads for each connection, how much CPU would it take approximately? Is there any alternative way to do this instead of using threads as it would take a lot of CPU?
Use asynchronous sockets API.
Asynchronous Server Socket Example
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fx6588te.aspx
Asynchronous Client Socket Example
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bew39x2a.aspx
Using an Asynchronous Server Socket
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5w7b7x5f.aspx
WCF is one option. Another is to consider using a network library which gives you the option of using either threads or asynchronous connections, NetworkComms.Net or lidgren.
Disclaimer: I'm a developer for NetworkComms.Net.
HTTP as an application message protocol doesn't keep a flow back-and-forth of messages, but only a single pair is exchanged; a request and a response, and so from an application perspective it is a connectionless protocol. The connection-oriented TCP part is only to garantuee successful delivery of all data in the request or all data in the response.
As such it doesn't make sense to talk about keeping HTTP connections open from the server. The server might do chunked encoding to pretend it can send multiple reply messages, but that won't work empirically.
I'm trying to build a simple multithreaded tcp server. The client connects and sends data to server, the server responds and waits for data again. The problem is I need the server to listen for incoming data in separate thread and be able to send command to client any time (for example to notify about new update). As far as I understood, when ever client sends data to server, if server doesn't respond with any data, client app doesn't let me send more data, server simply doesn't receive them. If I send data ether way around, does the data need to be 'acknowledged' for tcpclient?
Here's the source for the server: http://csharp.net-informations.com/communications/files/print/csharp-multi-threaded-server-socket_print.htm
How can I make the server send command to a client in separate thread outside the "DoChat" functions loop? or do I have to handle everything in that thread? Do I have to respond to each request client sends me? Thanks!
The problem is I need the server to listen for incoming data in separate thread
No, there is an async API. You can polll a list of threads to see which ahve new data waiting, obcviously to be done froa worker thread.
As far as I understood, when ever client sends data to server, if server doesn't respond with any
data, client app doesn't let me send more data, server simply doesn't receive them.
That is a lot more crap programming than the way sockets work. Sockets are totally ok with streaming ata in sending and receiving direction att the same time.
How can I make the server send command to a client in separate thread outside the "DoChat"
functions
Wel, me diong your job costs money.
BUT: The example is retarded. As in- totally anti pattern. One thread per client? You will run into memroy problems and perforamnce problems once 1000+ clients connect. You get tons of context switches.
Second, the client is not async because it is not written so. Mayy I suggest giong to the documentation, reading up on sockts an trying to build that yourself? THEN come back with questions that show more than "i just try to copy paste".
With proper programming this is totally normal. I have a similar application in development, sending data lall the time to the client and getting commands from the client to modify the data stream. Works liek a charm.
If I send data ether way around, does the data need to be 'acknowledged' for tcpclient?
Yes and no. No, not for TCP - TCP does it'Äs wn handshake under the hoods. Yes, if your protocol decides it has to, which is a programmer level design decision. It may or may not be necesssary, depending on the content of the data. Sometimes the acknowledgement provides more information (timestamp server side, tracking numer) and is not pure ly there for "I got it".
I have created async library that currently is able to exchange single packets between server and client. Now I am trying to design mechanism that will handle packets in "Request-Response" fashion.
To be more precise lets look at this scenario:
Client sends GiveMeFile packet
Server receives it and instantly replies with HereIsYourFile response packet
Client receives this rssponse and saves the file
In step 2. it is important for client to expect a response and this respons must be received in specific time.
I was thinking about some kind of queue for "expected" responses, that would be cleared of every received response, but I am not sure if this is good approach.
Do you have any suggestions how to implement asynchronous Request-Response pattern?
I have implemented a high performance TCP Server using SocketAsyncEventArgs. You can Google around about it but there is a not so old article on it here which still is useful. SocketAsyncEventArgs totally worked for me to design a concurrent TCP Server.
Users in field with PDA's will generate messages and send to the server; users at the server end will generate messages which need to be sent to the PDA.
Messages are between the app and server code; not 100% user entered data. Ie, we'll capture some data in a form, add GPS location, time date and such and send that to the server.
Server may send us messages like updates to database records used in the PDA app, messages for the user etc.
For messages from the PDA to server, that's easy. PDA initiates call to server and passes data. Presently using web services at the server end and "add new web reference" and associated code on the PDA.
I'm coming unstuck trying to get messages from the the server to the PDA in a timely fashion. In some instances receiving the message quickly is important.
If the server had a message for a particular PDA, it would be great for the PDA to receive that within a few seconds of it being available. So polling once a minute is out; polling once a second will generate a lot of traffic and, maybe draim the PDA battery some ?
This post is the same question as mine and suggests http long polling:
Windows Mobile 6.0/6.5 - Push Notification
I've looked into WCF callbacks and they appear to be exactly what I want however, unavailable for compact framework.
This next post isn't for CF but raises issues of service availability:
To poll or not to poll (in a web services context)
In my context i'll have 500-700 devices wanting to communicate with a small number of web services (between 2-5).
That's a lot of long poll requests to keep open.
Is sockets the way to go ? Again that's a lot of connections.
I've also read about methods using exchange or gmail; i'm really hesitant to go down those paths.
Most of the posts i've found here and in google are a few years old; something may have come up since then ?
What's the best way to handle 500-700 PDA CF devices wanting near-instant communication from a server, whilst maintaing battery life ? Tall request i'm sure.
Socket communication seems like the easiest approach. You say you're using webservices for client-server comms, and that is essentially done behind the scenes by the server (webservice) opening a socket and listening for packets arriving, then responding to those packets.
You want to take the same approach in reverse, so each client opens a socket on its machine and waits for traffic to arrive. The client will basically need to poll its own socket (which doesnt incur any network traffic). Client will also need to communicate its ip address and socket to the server so that when the server needs to communicate back to the client it has a means of reaching it. The server will then use socket based comms (as opposed to webservices) to send messages out as required. Server can just open a socket, send message, then close socket again. No need to have lots of permanently open sockets.
There are potential catches though if the client is roaming around and hopping between networks. If this is the case then its likely that the ip address will be changing (and client will need to open a new socket and pass the new ip address/socket info to the server). It also increases the chances that the server will fail to communicate with the client.
Sounds like an interesting project. Good luck!
Ages ago, the CF team built an application called the "Lunch Launcher" which was based on WCF store-and-forward messaging. David Kline did a nice series on it (here the last one, which has a TOC for all earlier articles).
There's an on-demand Webcast on MSDN given by Jim Wilson that gives an outline of store-and-forward and the code from that webcast is available here.
This might do what you want, though it got some dependencies (e.g. Exchange) and some inherent limitations (e.g. no built-in delivery confirmation).
Ok, further looking and I may be closer to what I want; which I think i a form of http long poll anyway.
This article here - http://www.codeproject.com/KB/IP/socketsincsharp.aspx - shows how to have a listener on a socket. So I do this on the server side.
Client side then opens a socket to the server at this port; sends it's device ID.
Server code first checks to see if there is a response for that device. If there is, it responds.
If not, it either polls itself or subscribes to some event; then returns when it's got data.
I could put in place time out code on the server side if needed.
Blocking on the client end i'm not worried about because it's a background thread and no data is the same as blocking at the app level; as to CPU & batter life, not sure.
I know what i've written is fairly broad, but is this a strategy worth exploring ?
I have a client-server app where the client is on a Windows Mobile 6 device, written in C++ and the server is on full Windows and written in C#.
Originally, I only needed it to send messages from the client to the server, with the server only ever sending back an acknowledgement that it received the message. Now, I would like to update it so that the server can actually send a message to the client to request data. As I currently have it set up so the client is only in receive mode after it sends data to the server, this doesn't allow for the server to send a request at any time. I would have to wait for client data. My first thought would be to create another thread on the client with a separate open socket, listening for server requests...just like the server already has in respect the client. Is there a way, within the same thread and using the same socket, to all the server to send requests at any time?
Can you use something to the effect of WaitForMultipleObjects() and pass it a receive buffer and an event that tells it there is data to be sent?
When I needed to write an application with a client-server model where the clients could leave and enter whenever they want, (I assume that's also the case for your application as you use mobile devices) I made sure that the clients send an online message to the server, indicating they were connected and ready to do whatever they needed doing.
at that time the server could send messages back to the client trough the same open connection.
Also, but I don't know if that is applicable for you, I had some sort of heartbeat the clients sent to the server, letting it know it was still online. That way the server knows when a client was forcibly disconnected from the network and it could mark that client back as offline.
Using asynchronous communication is totally possible in single thread!
There is a common design pattern in network software development called the reactor pattern (look at this book). Some well known network library provides an implementation of this pattern (look at ACE).
Briefly, the reactor is an object, you register all your sockets inside, and you wait for something. If something happened (new data arrived, connection close...) the reactor will notify you. And of course, you can use only one socket to send and received data asynchronously.
I'm not clear on whether or not you're wanting to add the asynchronous bits to the server in C# or the client in C++.
If you're talking about doing this in C++, desktop Windows platforms can do socket I/O asynchronously through the API's that use overlapped I/O. For sockets, WSASend, WSARecv both allow async I/O (read the documentation on their LPOVERLAPPED parameters, which you can populate with events that get set when the I/O completes).
I don't know if Windows Mobile platforms support these functions, so you might have to do some additional digging.
Check out asio. It is a cross compatable c++ library for asyncronous IO. I am not sure if this would be useful for the server ( I have never tried to link a standard c++ DLL to a c# project) but for the client it would be useful.
We use it with our application, and it solved most of our IO concurrency problems.