I am writing a chat application with friend request capabilities, and currently using socket.io events to send/receive messages between users.
I'm conflicted on when to use AJAX and when to use sockets in the event that I have access to the socket. i.e.
$.ajax({url:'friendAdd'}) vs socket.emit('friendAdd');
for all my friend request logic.
Would it be better to stay consistent throughout the application and use sockets for all other requests, or are there reasons that using AJAX would be more optimal?
I'd say it really depends on a request by request basis what you're doing. Once you have a socket.io connection established, it is technically a bit more efficient to just use it for everything since the connection is already established on both ends so all you have to do is send a message packet.
But, some requests from client to server (depending upon what they are) may benefit from some of the HTTP infrastructure that is already built into your HTTP framework on the server (like Express). For example, if you were uploading a file, you could do it over the socket.io connection, but there's a lot of code already built to do that over HTTP that you could just use and that may not already exist for doing that type of request over socket.io. Or, if you are using various Express middleware for sessions, cookies, authentication, routing, etc... it may be much easier to take advantage of all that existing infrastructure and modules in the http world rather than try to reimplement for socket.io messages.
Personally, I would tend to keep the socket.io traffic to chat related traffic only and obviously anything that must be server push and then use regular Ajax calls for other functions that aren't directly chat. But, there's no exact answer there, it really depends upon what you think is the cleanest architecture and best encapsulation of functionality.
FYI, some interesting discussion (and other references) around this topic in this other answer: Ajax vs Socket.io
Related
Is there another way to create a connection stream between a loaded page (client) and the server without using repeated AJAX calls, like every half second? I think of something that will make the client listening until the server gives a response (which can take a few seconds to arrive).
Thank you for your answers.
I would like to recommd you Phil Leggetter's Guide to Real-time technologies - because that is what you are looking for.
You will need one of the html5 introduced connection aspects: WebSockets, Server-Sent Events or even WebRTC DataChannel could be possible if you have a peer-to-peer use case.
In reference to the above link, its always about your server setup and your use case - that in mind some commonly used technologies would be: Pusher, Firebase, Socket.io, Ratchet, etc.
Update
Server-sent-events do have more server-side compatibilitly, technically it is more like optimized HTTP streaming, you can read more details in the spec and on caniuse.
If you need a constant bidirectional connection and better client side support you better go with WebSockets. But you will need to set up a compatible server or use an external service like Pusher or Firebase.
I'm fairly new to the world of JS and its abundance of libraries. I'm looking to get into a project that involves network communication (sockets) between clients and a server. In a world with tons of libraries, I cannot make a decision as to which to use. I'm looking for something that will bring efficiency and stability.
I've been told that Node.js is like the middleman between you, as the developer, and Socket.IO. I've been told it's a huge framework that you may not use at least half of. I've been told that to maximize efficiency, you're better off using Socket.IO to make your own functionalities. I've done some research on my own and found that Socket.IO NEEDS Node.js and Node.js DOESN'T NEED Socket.IO. Which is completely opposite of what I was told. Then I find that most developers use both Socket.IO and Node.js at the same time?
Like I said, I'm fairly new, but I cannot find the right resources that would help me accomplish a websocket communication between a client and a server with maximum efficiency, or at least explain the difference between Socket.IO and Node.js. If anyone here could, please let me know! I would greatly appreciate it.
node.js is a general purpose javascript-based run-time environment (somewhat similar to other language runtimes like python in scope). You can create apps in it that don't even use the network. It is often used as a web server for created web apps and has a great set of tools and rich library of add-ons for doing so. It does not need socket.io.
socket.io is a specific library to enable web-socket-like communication between a client and a server (e.g. a chat room app is the canonical example). The server side of socket.io assumes a javascript run-time (because it's written in javascript) so that generally means node.js (though I'm not sure if a different JS runtime could perhaps be substituted).
You can think of node.js like the platform and socket.io like a specific tool to do a specific job that runs on that platform. You would use socket.io (on top of node.js) if you needed web socket connectivity between client and server.
You would use only node.js if you need any of the other things node is good at, but did not need websocket connectivity.
websockets themselves can be programmed on the server side without socket.io and without node.js. They could be programmed in strait C++ or in Java. But socket.io (running in node) provides a very easy way to set them up because the socket.io library covers both client and server in one library and one API and it's all in the same language (javascript). Look at the chat room app example on the socket.io site and you will be unlikely to find any other solution that can accomplish that in as few lines of code as it does and with the same interface on client and server.
If you were only setting up a websocket server (no web server or web app of any kind), you could still use node and socket.io and use it just for the websocket server and it would still be quite efficient. While node is capable of doing lots of other things, if you don't configure and install all those other things, they aren't costing you anything - they are just unused capabilities that aren't running.
I should add that one other thing the socket.io library does is it handles an auto-negotiation between client and server to find the best channel for the client and server to communicate on. If websockets are available, then socket.io will likely use them, but if web sockets are not available, socket.io has alternate methods that will work (even in older browsers). That functionality comes for free in socket.io without you even doing anything.
In case this isn't completely clear to you, websockets are typically used to provide real-time communication between client and server. While clients can ask for data from a server at any time with an ajax call or a web page request, what websockets allow is a two way real-time communication between client and server and the biggest advantage of websockets is that a server can send a client real-time data at any time while they are connected.
For example, I have a web page that receives real-time data from my server anytime the web page is open. The web page is served over the typical node.js web server installation, but the real-time data is sent from server to client over a websocket connection.
In addition, if there's a chatty conversation happening between client and server, websockets can be much more efficient than a series of ajax calls because with a websocket, a connection is opened once and used repeatedly whereas with ajax, each successive ajax call is like a new connection.
Node.js is a runtime environment. It's a javascript engine with a standard library built around asynchronous I/O. It plays the same role that Java, Python, Ruby, .NET, etc., play for many other web applications.
I've been told it's a huge framework that you may not use at least half of.
It might be true that most people never use most of the standard library, but I wouldn't think it's more true of Node.js than other runtimes. "Framework" isn't an accurate word to describe it.
I've been told that to maximize efficiency, you're better off using Socket.IO to make your own functionalities.
Whoever told you that was mistaken, or meant that to maximize efficiency, you're better off using [Node.js and] Socket.IO [instead of other solutions]. Many other non-Node.js solutions require a single thread or process per connection, which limits the number of simultaneous connections a server can handle. Node.js is built around asynchronous I/O which is better for keeping many connections open at once, and Socket.IO is a library for Node.js for using WebSockets.
TL;DR: Socket.IO can fire events in realtime between your client and server, so there is no need for you to reload the page to notice something changing. This can be used for "live" applications like collaborative drawing, live chats, online games and more!
I am using pull mechanism for my web services. Now we want to move towards push mechanism. I am aware of SignalR and NodeJS for that purpose.
Someone also mentioned JSON RPC. I have very little knowledge about it and searching google didn’t yield me the result weather I can use this for push mechanism.
Also, its worth noting that my client of the web-service is completely JavaScript client. No server side language.
Thanks
It depends what you mean by "push".
I am using pull mechanism for my web services. Now we want to move
towards push mechanism. I am aware of SignalR and NodeJS for that
purpose.
To most people, "push" just means that a publish/subscribe model is used to set up advance expectation of data to be sent from the server to the client at some unknown time(s) in the future.
As you say you're doing JavaScript in a browser, then you have all the inherent limitations that arise from that environment. Various implementations of asynchronous bi-directional communications in browsers (e.g: WebSockets, WebRTC) and even some push-like technologies (Comet) have been implemented.
True "push" relies on the ability for the server to send messages to clients over the network, which doesn't work well; clients mostly don't allow incoming connections, many clients are behind NAT.
Is there someone pushing this agenda that perhaps doesn't understand the technical considerations? Why "push"? Usually this kind of discussion centres around reducing resources on the server (e.g: open sockets). Is that what's going on here? What's the background?
Someone also mentioned JSON RPC. I have very little knowledge about it
and searching google didn’t yield me the result weather I can use this
for push mechanism.
The JSON-RPC protocol is simply a protocol (agreed way) of sending JSON via some bi-directional communications channel between two hosts.
The JSON-RPC protocol does describe "notification"-type messages which don't (in theory) require solicitation via a "request-response" messaging. e.g:
a client could send a "notification" message to the server
a server could send a "notification" message to the client
(Reading the spec, it seems focussed on client to server "notifications", but in earlier drafts/discussions that wasn't the case and JSON-RPC certainly isn't the most standards oriented community out there :-)
Also, its worth noting that my client of the web-service is completely
JavaScript client. No server side language.
Implemenations of JSON-RPC are greatly constrained by their transport protocols. (e.g: HTTP).
When implemented over plain HTTP (such as via XMLHttpRequest) there's no way for the server to contact the client outside of a response to some prior request -- that means that while client-server "notification" messages are possible, server-client "notification" (push-like) messages are not.
When implemented over a TCP socket (not available in a browser) then it's absolutely possible for the server to send "notification" messages to the client (as long as the socket is open, and the client is prepared to asynchronously process recieved messages outside of an RPC-like request-response cycle).
Possible solutions:
(1) If you implement JSON-RPC over some pre-existing browser-based asynchronous bi-directional transport protocol (WebSockets, WebRTC) instead of AJAX, then you can get pretty close to proper JSON-RPC bi-directional "notification" messages. In both cases, some advance setup is required, but as you're talking about "push", then that's expected anyway (pubsub).
(2) Another way to do it would be to have the client poll for batches of notifications (standard request/response style messages), which might come back as an empty array, or could be 1 or more "notification" sub-messages.
Neither of these browser-based approaches are truly "push" as they don't eliminate the need for some underlying ongoing client to server to server (request-response) communications.
I have X amount of activity sensors connected to a server that inserts data to a database everytime a sensor is triggered. What I'm trying to do is create a web interface with a blue print of the facility (svg) and whenever a sensor is triggered, besides the db insert, I want it to show some sort of alert in my blue print. For that I need to keep an open connection to the server I think.
I was thinking of using web sockets, but it might be overkill since I only need to retrieve data from the server. But running an ajax call every second doesn't sound very efficient either. Are there any other alternatives?
Thank you
Some potential choices include:
WebSocket
Adobe® Flash® Socket
AJAX long polling
AJAX multipart streaming
Forever Iframe
JSONP Polling
Which actual transport you end up using will depend on the your requirements for browser support and what technology you are using on the server to handle these requests. The transport choice may also depend on your network topology - what types of load balancers you need to integrate with, proxies, etc.
There are many libraries available on both the client and server sides, many of which support more than one of these transports.
For example (not an exhaustive list):
socket.io for nodejs
WebSocket
Adobe® Flash® Socket
AJAX long polling
AJAX multipart streaming
Forever Iframe
JSONP Polling
SignalR for an asp/.net backend
WebSockets
Server-Sent Events
ForeverFrame
Long Polling
Atmosphere for a java backend
WebSockets
Server Side Events (SSE)
Long-Polling
Forever frame
JSONP
IMO - Websockets is NOT overkill for this type of problem and would lend itself nicely to this type of application.
Without specifically discussing frameworks or knowing what is running in the backend of your server(s), we have a few options to consider for the frontend:
Websockets
Websockets are designed for bidirectional communication, although it is kind of shocking how many users are surfing the web in a browser that doesn't support websockets. I always recommend a fallback for this, such as the other methods listed below.
SSE
SSE is an HTML5 spec and is still shaky at best. Try scrolling on a page while when an SSE event fires... It may be a little easier on the backend, put it sometimes hangs on the client side since it runs inside the same thread that the DOM is running in.
Long Polling
Keeps your connection open. It doesn't scale well with PHP, but performs swimmingly with Python+Twisted on the backend, or Node.Js
Good Old Ajax
Keep your requests small, and you still have a scalable solution. Yes, a full GET request is the most expensive, but is supported in just about every browser rolled out the past ten years. It is also worth noting that GET requests are easy to scale horizontally with more hardware.
In a perfect world:
You would break up your application into a few components, operating behind a reverse proxy such as Nginx. Then use Node.Js + Socket.IO handle the realtime aspects of your app.
Another option would be to use small Ajax requests, and offer websocket support for the browsers that support it. This is advice specifically for PHP in the backend.
WebSocket is certainly not overkill. On the contrary. With websockets, you have a bi-directional communication channel; this means, that the server can initiate communication whenever it seems fit (e.g. when sensor data changes).
In a previous project, I have used node.js together with socket.io, to monitor 50+ sensors. Data was updated in real-time in a browser. The data was visualized using smoothie.js.
Whenever a sensor value was updated, it was communicated to the browser. Some sensors only updated once a minute, others once a second, ...
Polling would have been overkill, because it would retrieve all data for all sensors, even from those that were not updated yet.
I had a similar problem and did a lot of research on this. As I understand it, there are three main options:
Short polling: Have an endpoint that your javascript client pings every second. This is the worst option, because the pings add latency up to one second to your communication, and depending on how you implement, the endpoint could query the database every second, adding unnecessary overhead.
Long polling: Have an endpoint that your javascript client pings that holds the connection until a) the event occurs or b) the connection times out. If the endpoint returns a response, the client gets the event information. If the endpoint does not return a response, no event has occurred, and the client sends a new request. This is a good option because the events can immediately trigger the response to the client, assuming you have an asynchronous interprocess communication layer (like 0MQ) to send the message without any sort of polling.
Websocket: Have your javascript client connect to a websocket server, which will send a message to your client immediately upon the event trigger.
I think a websocket is your best option, because it accommodates immediate communication of the event without all the request/response overhead. And most importantly, this is exactly what websockets are designed to do! As such, you will probably have to write the least amount of custom code with this solution.
There are two great commercial services that might work for you.
Firebase - a javascript hierarchical database and realtime
messaging/ synchronization platform, uses websockets and has other fallbacks
PubNub - a real time message passing and queue system, uses websockets
I have read many posts on SO and the web regarding the keywords in my question title and learned a lot from them. Some of the questions I read are related to specific implementation challenges while others focus on general concepts. I just want to make sure I understood all of the concepts and the reasoning why technology X was invented over technology Y and so on. So here goes:
Http Polling: Basically AJAX, using XmlHttpRequest.
Http Long Polling: AJAX but the server holds on to the response unless the server has an update, as soon as the server has an update, it sends it and then the client can send another request. Disadvantage is the additional header data that needs to be sent back and forth causing additional overhead.
Http Streaming: Similar to long polling but the server responds with a header with "Transfer Encoding: chunked" and hence we do not need to initiate a new request every time the server sends some data (and hence save the additional header overhead). The drawback here is that we have to "understand" and figure out the structure of the data to distinguish between multiple chunks sent by the server.
Java Applet, Flash, Silverlight: They provide the ability to connect to socket servers over tcp/ip but since they are plugins, developers don't want to depend on them.
WebSockets: they are the new API which tries to address the short comings of above methods in the following manner:
The only advantage of WebSockets over plugins like Java Applets, Flash or Silverlight is that WebSockets are natively built into browsers and does not rely on plugins.
The only advantage of WebSockets over http streaming is that you don't have to make an effort to "understand" and parse the data received.
The only advantage of WebSockets over Long Polling is that of elimination of extra headers size & opening and closing of socket connection for request.
Are there any other significant differences that I am missing? I'm sorry if I am re-asking or combining many of the questions already on SO into a single question, but I just want to make perfect sense out of all the info that is out there on SO and the web regarding these concepts.
Thanks!
There are more differences than the ones you have identified.
Duplex/directional:
Uni-directional: HTTP poll, long poll, streaming.
Bi-direcitonal: WebSockets, plugin networking
In order of increasing latency (approximate):
WebSockets
Plugin networking
HTTP streaming
HTTP long-poll
HTTP polling
CORS (cross-origin support):
WebSockets: yes
Plugin networking: Flash via policy request (not sure about others)
HTTP * (some recent support)
Native binary data (typed arrays, blobs):
WebSockets: yes
Plugin networking: not with Flash (requires URL encoding across ExternalInterface)
HTTP *: recent proposal to enable binary type support
Bandwidth in decreasing efficiency:
Plugin networking: Flash sockets are raw except for initial policy request
WebSockets: connection setup handshake and a few bytes per frame
HTTP streaming (re-use of server connection)
HTTP long-poll: connection for every message
HTTP poll: connection for every message + no data messages
Mobile device support:
WebSocket: iOS 4.2 and up. Some Android via Flash emulation or using Firefox for Android or Google Chrome for Android which both provide native WebSocket support.
Plugin networking: some Android. Not on iOS
HTTP *: mostly yes
Javascript usage complexity (from simplest to most complicated). Admittedly complexity measures are somewhat subjective.
WebSockets
HTTP poll
Plugin networking
HTTP long poll, streaming
Also note that there is a W3C proposal for standardizing HTTP streaming called Server-Sent Events. It is currently fairly early in it's evolution and is designed to provide a standard Javascript API with comparable simplicity to WebSockets.
Some great answers from others that cover a lot of ground. Here's a little bit extra.
The only advantage of WebSockets over plugins like Java Applets, Flash or Silverlight is that WebSockets are natively built into browsers and does not rely on plugins.
If by this you mean that you can use Java Applets, Flash, or Silverlight to establish a socket connection, then yes, that is possible. However you don't see that deployed in the real world too often because of the restrictions.
For example, intermediaries can and do shutdown that traffic. The WebSocket standard was designed to be compatible with existing HTTP infrastructure and so is far less prone to being interfered with by intermediaries like firewalls and proxies.
Moreover, WebSocket can use port 80 and 443 without requiring dedicated ports, again thanks to the protocol design to be as compatible as possible with existing HTTP infrastructure.
Those socket alternatives (Java, Flash, and Silverlight) are difficult to use securely in a cross-origin architecture. Thus people often attempting to use them cross-origin will tolerate the insecurities rather than go to the effort of doing it securely.
They can also require additional "non-standard" ports to be opened (something administrators are loathe to do) or policy files that need to be managed.
In short, using Java, Flash, or Silverlight for socket connectivity is problematic enough that you don't see it deployed in serious architectures too often. Flash and Java have had this capability for probably at least 10 years, and yet it's not prevalent.
The WebSocket standard was able to start with a fresh approach, bearing those restrictions in mind, and hopefully having learned some lessons from them.
Some WebSocket implementations use Flash (or possibly Silverlight and/or Java) as their fallback when WebSocket connectivity cannot be established (such as when running in an old browser or when an intermediary interferes).
While some kind of fallback strategy for those situations is smart, even necessary, most of those that use Flash et al will suffer from the drawbacks described above. It doesn't have to be that way -- there are workarounds to achieve secure cross-origin capable connections using Flash, Silverlight, etc -- but most implementations won't do that because it's not easy.
For example, if you rely on WebSocket for a cross-origin connection, that will work fine. But if you then run in an old browser or a firewall/proxy interfered and rely on Flash, say, as your fallback, you will find it difficult to do that same cross-origin connection. Unless you don't care about security, of course.
That means it's difficult have a single unified architecture that works for native and non-native connections, unless you're prepared to put in quite a bit of work or go with a framework that has done it well. In an ideal architecture, you wouldn't notice if the connections were native or not; your security settings would work in both cases; your clustering settings would still work; your capacity planning would still hold; and so on.
The only advantage of WebSockets over http streaming is that you don't have to make an effort to "understand" and parse the data received.
It's not as simple as opening up an HTTP stream and sitting back as your data flows for minutes, hours, or longer. Different clients behave differently and you have to manage that. For example some clients will buffer up the data and not release it to the application until some threshold is met. Even worse, some won't pass the data to the application until the connection is closed.
So if you're sending multiple messages down to the client, it's possible that the client application won't receive the data until 50 messages worth of data has been received, for example. That's not too real-time.
While HTTP streaming can be a viable alternative when WebSocket is not available, it is not a panacea. It needs a good understanding to work in a robust way out in the badlands of the Web in real-world conditions.
Are there any other significant differences that I am missing?
There is one other thing that noone has mentioned yet, so I'll bring it up.
The WebSocket protocol was designed to a be a transport layer for higher-level protocols. While you can send JSON messages or what-not directly over a WebSocket connection, it can also carry standard or custom protocols.
For example, you could do AMQP or XMPP over WebSocket, as people have already done. So a client could receive messages from an AMQP broker as if it were connected directly to the broker itself (and in some cases it is).
Or if you have an existing server with some custom protocol, you can transport that over WebSocket, thus extending that back-end server to the Web. Often an existing application that has been locked in the enterprise can broaden it's reach using WebSocket, without having to change any of the back-end infrastructure.
(Naturally, you'd want to be able to do all that securely so check with the vendor or WebSocket provider.)
Some people have referred to WebSocket as TCP for the Web. Because just like TCP transports higher-level protocols, so does WebSocket, but in a way that's compatible with Web infrastructure.
So while sending JSON (or whatever) messages directly over WebSocket is always possible, one should also consider existing protocols. Because for many things you want to do, there's probably a protocol that's already been thought of to do it.
I'm sorry if I am re-asking or combining many of the questions already on SO into a single question, but I just want to make perfect sense out of all the info that is out there on SO and the web regarding these concepts.
This was a great question, and the answers have all been very informative!
If I may ask one additional thing: I came across in an article somewhere that says that http streaming may also be cached by proxies while websockets are not. what does that mean?
(StackOverflow limits the size of comment responses, so I've had to answer here rather than inline.)
That's a good point. To understand this, think about a traditional HTTP scenario... Imagine a browser opened a web page, so it requests http://example.com, say. The server responds with HTTP that contains the HTML for the page. Then the browser sees that there are resources in the page, so it starts requesting the CSS files, JavaScript files, and images of course. They are all static files that will be the same for all clients requesting them.
Some proxies will cache static resources so that subsequent requests from other clients can get those static resources from the proxy, rather than having to go all the way back to the central web server to get them. This is caching, and it's a great strategy to offload requests and processing from your central services.
So client #1 requests http://example.com/images/logo.gif, say. That request goes through the proxy all the way to the central web server, which serves up logo.gif. As logo.gif passes through the proxy, the proxy will save that image and associate it with the address http://example.com/images/logo.gif.
When client #2 comes along and also requests http://example.com/images/logo.gif, the proxy can return the image and no communication is required back to the web server in the center. This gives a faster response to the end user, which is always great, but it also means that there is less load on the center. That can translate to reduced hardware costs, reduced networking costs, etc. So it's a good thing.
The problem arises when the logo.gif is updated on the web server. The proxy will continue to serve the old image unaware that there is a new image. This leads to a whole thing around expiry so that the proxy will only cache the image for a short time before it "expires" and the next request goes through the proxy to the web server, which then refreshes the proxy's cache. There are also more advanced solutions where a central server can push out to known caches, and so on, and things can get pretty sophisticated.
How does this tie in to your question?
You asked about HTTP streaming where the server is streaming HTTP to a client. But streaming HTTP is just like regular HTTP except you don't stop sending data. If a web server serves an image, it sends HTTP to the client that eventually ends: you've sent the whole image. And if you want to send data, it's exactly the same, but the server just sends for a really long time (like it's a massively gigantic image, say) or even never finishes.
From the proxy's point of view, it cannot distinguish between HTTP for a static resource like an image, or data from HTTP streaming. In both of those cases, the client made a request of the server. The proxy remembered that request and also the response. The next time that request comes in, the proxy serves up the same response.
So if your client made a request for stock prices, say, and got a response, then the next client may make the same request and get the cached data. Probably not what you want! If you request stock prices you want the latest data, right?
So it's a problem.
There are tricks and workarounds to handle problems like that, it is true. Obviously you can get HTTP streaming to work since it's it's in use today. It's all transparent to the end user, but the people who develop and maintain those architectures have to jump through hoops and pay a price. It results in over-complicated architectures, which means more maintenance, more hardware, more complexity, more cost. It also means developers often have to care about something they shouldn't have to when they should just be focussing on the application, GUI, and business logic -- they shouldn't have to be concerned about the underlying communication.
HTTP limits the number of connections a client can have with a server to 2 (although this can be mitigated by using subdomains) and IE has been known to enforce this eagerly. Firefox and Chrome allow more (although I can't remember of the top of my head exactly how many). This might not seem like a huge issue but if you are using 1 connection constantly for real-time updates, all other requests have to bottleneck through the other HTTP connection. And there is the matter of having more open connections from clients puts more load on the server.
WebSockets are a TCP-based protocol and as such don't suffer from this HTTP-level connection limit (but, of course, browser support is not uniform).