Develop Reference

Why we have WebSockets but have not simple Sockets in Web? [duplicate]

I've read about WebSockets but they don't seem to be pure "sockets", because there is an application layer protocol over them. "ws:"
Is there any way of doing a pure socket connection from a web browser, to enliven webpages?
Here are my random stabs in the dark
Applets sockets provided by Java (need java installed)
Flash sockets provided by Flash (need flash installed)
But about HTML5, Why are they called WebSockets if they aren't Sockets?
Is the websocket protocol so simple to implement that it is "almost"-sockets?

I've read about WebSockets but they don't seem to be pure "sockets", because there is an application layer protocol over them.
[Is the] websocket protocol so simple to implement that [it is] "almost"-sockets?
Allowing regular socket connections directly from the browser is never going to happen because it opens up a huge risk. WebSockets is about as close to raw sockets from the browser as you are going to get. The initial WebSockets handshake is similar to an HTTP handshake (allowing web servers to proxy/bridge it) and adds CORS type security. In addition, WebSockets is a message based transport (rather than streaming as raw TCP) and this is done using a two byte header on each message frame.
Even flash is not able to quite make raw TCP connections. Flash sockets also add CORS security, but instead of an in-band handshake, flash socket connections make a connection to port 843 on the target server to request a security policy file.
Is there any way of doing a pure socket connection from a web browser, to enliven webpages?
Yes, you can use my websockify bridge/proxy which allows a WebSockets enabled browser to connect directly to a TCP socket via websockify.
But about HTML5, Why are they called WebSockets if they aren't Sockets?
WebSockets are a transport built on TCP sockets. After the handshake there is very minimal overhead (typically just a two byte header).

I can't improve on Kanaka's answers to your secondary questions, and I know this question is a year old. But for the main question, Is there any way of doing a pure socket connection from a web browser, to enliven webpages? There is a project called the Java / JavaScript Socket Bridge that might be what you (or anyone coming across this page from a Google search) are looking for. The advantage of this method over what others have mentioned is that it does not require either a client-side or a server-side service to be run. So, for instance, if you wanted to implement an IRC client purely in JavaScript but your web host does not allow you sufficient rights to proxy the connection, this Java applet would be the way to go. The only concern is making sure the client has Java installed and allowed.

You can just send data between a client and a server with WebSockets. Simply speaking, the only difference that WebSockets introduces is that the client:
adds some header bytes, like the type of data and the length
adds masks and encodes the data using them
The server also has to add header bytes, but does not need to encode the data.
If you implement the protocol correctly (server side, that is, since the browser already has an implementation), you can use it with ease to send text and binary data. (Although browser support is narrow, especially for the latter.)

The benefit of WebSocket is that it is HTTP based. You can use it also in environments there http proxies are used. Thus Websocket has a higher infrastructure compatibility as plain tcp.
Additionally http/WebSocket is providing you some features which you otherwise have to specify on your own:
Redirect
NAT keepalive
Multiplexing via URI
Framing

If you are asking for some data to be pushed from server it is widely termed as COMET or Reverse Ajax.
Web sockets is still not very popular as there are inherent firewall issues and minimal support yet from popular browsers.
You can take a look at http://www.ape-project.org/ as this is one of the most popular implementations (but native to unix/linux only for now. For windows they suggest using a virtual box or vmware based implementation)

Why pubnub javascript sdk (?) choses XHR over Websocket?

I'm developing simple browser real-time multiplayer (2 players in a gameplay atm) game. It involves fast and frequent player moves and changes of direction, so informations must be exchanged very quickly - I decided to try websockets (would be happy to use pubnub service instead of self-hosting socket server).
My problem is, pubnub always decides to use xhr fallback instead of websockets - don't know why. Are there any specific requirements that must be fulfilled to run communication via websockets? Http is obviously too slow and kills the experience. I'm using latest Chrome on a Mac, so browser compatibility is not an issue.
Or maybe, there is so many variables to determine communication protocol, that the question cannot be answered? And my only solution is to use self-hosted socket server?

Realtime Protocol WebSockets and XHR with PubNub
Modern data stream networks and open source solutions start with XHR. For several reasons this is optimal to start with including speed. Performance is dependent on the speed of light and how fast Ethernet Frames are able to be transmitted between devices on the internet. This is the foundation for protocol independence and the core determinator for latency and speed of messages across the internet. The PubNub client SDKs, such as JavaScript, do not provide a setting to force a particular protocol.
How PubNub Works
See How PubNub Works scroll down for mouse demo.
PubNub is the fastest global data stream network available today with 15 data centers world wide to support your high speed and low latency requirements. Over 1/4 billion devices connected to the PubNub data stream network experience send/receive speeds from 10ms to 100ms per message.
What is Protocol Independence?
The people behind the PubNub Data Stream Network believe in the Protocol Independence and the open mobile web; meaning that we will use the best protocol to get connectivity through any environment. Protocols, like WebSockets, can get tripped up by cell tower switching, double NAT environments, and even some anti-virus software or proxy boarder authorities.
PubNub provides client libraries specifically so we can auto-switch the protocol and remove socket-level complexities making it easy for developers to build apps that can communicate in realtime.
PubNub has used a variety of protocols over time, like WebSockets, MQTT, COMET, BOSH, long polling and others, and we are exploring currently prototyping future designs using SPDY, HTTP 2.0, and others. The bottom line is that PubNub will work in every network environment, and has very low network bandwidth overhead, as well as low battery drain on mobile devices.

You could also try other cloud services that use WebSockets as the first-option protocol (with XHR fallbacks), like Pusher and Realtime (the company I work for).

Server sent event vs web sockets?

I'm working on a web app that is accessible to users via multiple platforms from smartphones to desktops which needs to sometimes make a communication between two clients for example if I want my friend to join my network I'd send him a friend request but I want that request to be seen by my friend without him having to refresh the page.
In this scenario which would be a better choice?
And also since I want this to work on as many platforms and browsers as possible which has more browser support?
Is there a better option?

Some things to keep in mind when making this choice.
Attempting to fetch content over a WebSocket connection is a poor
design decision because WebSockets is a different protocol nested
inside an HTTP connection and it can't leverage caching (neither the
browsers nor CDNs).
Some older proxies won't pass on a Websocket connection unless its hidden within a secure connection while Server
Sent Events remains an HTTP connection and won't suffer from
this.
Neither WebSockets nor SSE are supported in the native Android
browser until 4.4 (when they switched to using Chrome) - thus if
you're considering a hybrid mobile app, you will need a fallback such
as SocketIO since, as of this writing, 4.4 is only 20% of the market
and hybrid apps use the native Android browser.
WebSockets is the
most battery efficient protocol for mobile devices, since all other
options require many HTTP connections and it is the repeated
negotiating of the headers that will burden the cpu and drain the
battery.
Another option may be notifications. All mobile devices now support notifications that can be targeted to an App and a number of browsers have as well. In all cases a connection already exists from the client to the messaging center (Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc) and all notifications are sent over this channel.
Here's a good overview of WebSockets vs. SSE:
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/eventsource/basics/

Server Sent Events: A persistent connection server-2-client only, for sending text messages and that is implemented in all major browsers, but Internet Explorer. It can reconnect itself if connectivity is lost. http://caniuse.com/eventsource
WebSokets: A full duplex persistent connection capable of transmitting UTF8 text and binary data. http://caniuse.com/websockets
WebSocket is better, and the future.

From what I understand, SSEs are simpler and easier to implement, whereas WebSockets offer bi-directional data transfer but are their own protocol/API you need to understand to take advantage of. Honestly I've never really bothered with SSEs, Socket.IO does all I've needed as far as real time web app communication fairly easily and is built to be cross-browser.
If you just want him to be able to see a notification, then SSEs should be fine. If you want him to be able to reply to your friend request from the same page, then have the server send you a notification that he's accepted, you'll probably want to use a WebSockets implementation.

My Understanding of HTTP Polling, Long Polling, HTTP Streaming and 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).

Is there a difference between long-polling and using Comet

I am implementing a system where I need real-time updates. I have been looking at certain scenarios and among all was Comet. Implementing this I do not see any way this is different from traditional long-polling.
In both cases you have to send a request, and then the server send a response back. In the browser you interpret the response and then you start a new request.
So why should I use comet if in both cases I need to open and close connections.

Some Comet techniques don't require that you constantly open new requests (the chunked hidden iframe, for instance), the idea being to hold the request open and have the server periodically sending data. But this doesn't work well across all major browsers without (as one Wikipedia contributor delicately put it) negative side-effects, hence the long-polling technique. More in the linked article.

As mentioned by Marcelo, Comet is usually used to describe any techniques for "HTTP streaming", including long-polling. In some cases, Comet might also refer more specifically to the Bayeux Protocol. For instance, the jQuery Comet plugin is of this protocol. From the Bayeux website:
Delivery of asynchronous messages from the server to a web client is often described as server-push.
The combination of server push techniques with an Ajax web application has been called Comet.
CometD is a project by the Dojo Foundation to provide multiple implementation of the Bayeux protocol in several programming languages.
Bayeux is an attempt to standardize a publish/subscribe protocol using Comet techniques, allowing for vendors of client and server side libraries to create interoperable components.

Comet is an umbrella term for a wide range of asynchronous update techniques, of which long-polling is just one.

If you want to push insteal of pulling, you can use JPE.