I assigned myself with the task of implementing the chat app (1:1) for my curriculum.Among the various options I used SSE for real time chats.From the example projects I am able to implement the non persistent chat between two clients.In every examples they uses js object and array to store the res object and by iterating them they sent events to particular user.But when implementing the real time chat app the users may increase dramatically So it is not good to exhaust server resources.
I found the some of the other ways to achieve same
functionality but not sure about the performance
SSE+setInterval
I used redis Queue to push offline messages to the user.
when the user establishes the connection push all the unread chats to client.
This process happens immediately when client establishes connection with server.
I faced some problem here, as I have no way of triggering the messages in real time(when both users online).
So I used setInterval with time interval of 1 second for real time communication and write a callback function to check if the Queue is empty else pop message from Queue and sent to user as an event.
Will the above solutions affect performance ? Because I am calling the function for each connected user x 1 second interval.
Long polling
In long polling how can I find if there is new message for user and complete the request ?
Still here setInterval should be used in server side but what about performance?
Websockets
In websockets we have an unique id to find the client in the pool of clients, so we can forward message to particular user when event occurs.
Still websockets uses some ping pong mechanism to make connection persistent but resource utilization is very small as they are network calls with comparatively small data and handled asynchronously so no wastage in server resource.
Questions
How to trigger res.write only when the new message arrives to particular user?
Does SSE+setInterval or longpolling+setInterval degrades performance when user increases?
Else is there any design pattern to achieve this functionality?
Simply use websocket.
It's fast, convinient and simple.
To send message in realtime when both users are logged, find second user by id in users Array or Map and send received message to his websocket.
If you have buffered messages for disconnected user (in memory/database/redis) check it when user connects and send if it exists.
I'm trying to use the request reply pattern as described in the microsoft docs (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-bus-messaging/message-sessions#request-response-pattern)
"Multiple applications can send their requests to a single request queue, with a specific header parameter set to uniquely identify the sender application. The receiver application can process the requests coming in the queue and send replies on the session enabled queue, setting the session ID to the unique identifier the sender had sent on the request message. The application that sent the request can then receive messages on the specific session ID and correctly process the replies."
As I understand it, it should be possible to send a message from multiple applications, have the receiver handle the message and send a response that will only be picked up by the initial sender.
Maybe I'm wrong, but a bit like this.
This doesn't seem to be documented (only using sessions for ordered message handling) and I have no luck finding how to implement this.
Does anybody have an idea/experience with this?
I am using .net core 3.1 with the microsoft azure servicebus package (4.1.2)
Ok, it took some time figuring out but I think I was able to achieve the setup from the diagram.
Here is the process as it may help others:
I have one normal queue (PostNL queue) and one shared 'applications' queue that is sessions enabled
An application (e.g App1) sends a message to the PostNL queue using a QueueClient and setting a unique SessionId
The receiver handles the incoming messages through QueueClient.RegisterMessageHandler
The receiver processes the message and sends a reply to the applications queue using QueueClient.SendAsync (the replymessage has the SessionId set to UniqueSessionId)
The sender uses a session = SessionClient.AcceptMessageSessionAsync("UniqueSessionId")
The sender can start receiving messages in this session using session.ReceiveAsync
(all the other applications listening on the applications queue will not compete for these reply messages as long as they use other session Ids)
I am creating an chat application where I have a rest API and a socket.io server, What I want to do is the user will send messages to rest API, The api will persist those messages in database and then send these messages to the rabbimq queue then rabbitmq will send these messages to socket.io if the receiving user is online, Else the message will be stored in the queue and when the user will come online the user will retrieve these messages from the queue however I want to implement this in a way like whatsapp, The messages will be for a particular user and the user will only receive those messages which are meant for them i.e I don't want to broadcast messages I want only particular user to receive those messages
Chat should be a near-real-time application, there are multiple ways of modeling such a thing. First of all, you can use HTTP pooling, HTTP long pooling but some time ago there where introduced the new application-level protocol - web socket. It would be good for you, along with Stomp messages. Here you can check a brief example. And sending messages to specific users is also supported out-of-the-box example
1
To send messages to specific sockets you can use rooms: io.to(room).emit(msg). Every socket is a part of a room with the same name as the socket id.
2
I wouldn't wait for the message to be written to the database before sending it out through socket.io, your API can do both at once. When a user connects they can retrieve their messages from the database then listen for new ones on their socket.
I am designing a system with Socket.io, Nodejs, Expressjs, Redis, Angularjs in which message delivery is very crucial.
Use Case:
My system needs to listen for notifications on resources which can also be shared among multiple users. Sockets are connected to the server with information about resource so that I can maintain a list of sockets for each resource. When there is a notification for that resource I send notification on every socket for that resource.
ResourceID1 = ["scoketID1", "socketID2"] // Two sockets listening to ResourceID1
I update this list on socket disconnect also by removing that specific socket id out or resourceID list.
This way I make sure notification is sent to every user which is sharing the resource and every session of that user along with every socket which can be multiple tabs for one session. In short "Every Socket".
I am also maintaining a hash for the resource notification so that every time there is a new notification for a resource the particular resource notification hash will be updated.
ResourceID1-notificationHash : { key1:"124", key2: "abc" }
The reason for doing this is that if the socket disconnected like user closed the tab or more importantly user Internet disconnected for some reason. and the server does not receive heart beat socket connection is made again and the last message for that resource is sent to that socket.
To make sure that particular socket(client) always receive the message is my implementation enough?
I know I can implement callbacks for an event but what I did is when a particular tab(socket)that was disconnected, is connected again I send the last message for that resource.
Are there any other network glitches which can cause problems for reliable message delivery?
My implementation is different in a sense that for message delivery I am not considering Users, I am considering sockets which can be multiple for just one user like one user can have multiple sessions at the same time lets say in firefox and chrome and then for each session he can have multiple tabs opened. Reason for choosing sockets is my resources can be shared among multiple users so that for one resource update I may have to send the message to multiple users each having multiple sessions and each session having multiple sockets.
I'm using Php and MySQL.
I have just signup for pubnub push API and successfully made my first push notification using the PHP Push API provided by Pubnub. I'm new into this Realtime technology so I have come up with some questions which I find confusing to understand myself. I have googled many times and searched all over stackoverflow. I didn't get any relevant suggestions or questions elsewhere, so I'm writing down my question here seeking your advice and expertise help.
Pubnub says it's not a good thing to create more than two channels per client. So, in my application, I have a requirement to create more than two channels to listen to notifications happening everywhere on my website but I will go with two channels for every logged in users as Pubnub suggested.
Logged in users listens to Channel1-Public
Logged in users listens to private UsersOwnDynamic-Channel to receive notifications related and only meant for him.
FYI: This link in PubNub says about creating LongChannel names to avoid Channel Snooping
My questions are given below:
A. Do I always have to create a new private Dynamic channel name everytime I logged into the website. If so, how would other users know how to send a notification to my private Channel.Or, do I just need to have only one static channel name stored in database table, so that other authenticated users will query the table and get my private channel name to sent me notifications. If this is the case, don't you think if a hacker get hold of some private channel name of certain users, they will be able to listen to that channel?
B.I'm using PHP and MySQL, so I still cannot think out a way or come up with a solution to send message to private channels of another user.
Lets take an example for a simple friend request system.
- UserA sends a friend request to UserB.
- UserB is listening to his own dynamic private channel name called DynamicPrivateChannelB
(how will UserA find the channel name for UserB which is private? Im thinking the only way for this is that the private channel of UserB should be stored in a database table for every loggedin users to query. Am I thinking the right way ? )
<?php
//first way. How can i possibly achieve this.
$sqlquery = "sent friend request from userA to userB";
require('Pubnub.php');
$pubnub = new Pubnub( 'pubkey', 'subkey' );
$pubnub->publish( array(
'channel' => 'how do i find the private channel name for userB to sent this notification?',
'message' => array('friend_request' => 'A friend request') )
);
//2nd way ? Is this the right way ?
$sqlquery = "sent friend request from userA to userB";
$privatechannelofuserB = "get the channel name of userB from the db table";
require('Pubnub.php');
$pubnub = new Pubnub( 'pubkey', 'subkey' );
$pubnub->publish( array(
'channel' => '$privatechannelofuserB',
'message' => array('friend_request' => 'A friend request') )
);
?>
C. If we are always generating dynamic private channel names, storing in database table, updating whenever new dynamic channel names are generated. I think it will cause a problem because some message won't get delivered as new dynamic private channel names replaces old ones.
D. So, I have many notifications to sent to a single channel like New Friends request, New Private message replies, New gifts requests and many others like that. How do I sent all these data to a channel and how to find out and parse the incoming new notifications data. I know JSON is the format to send but im not sure about the format of sending.
According to this link, a single Pubnub channel can contain only up to 100 messages. Does it mean that if 200 messages comes at once to a single channel the first 100 gets delivered and the remaining is on queue ? How about if 10,000 messages comes at once to a single channel ? Do all the remaining messages stays in queue ? if so, how does it gets delivered to the subscriber in realtime ?
Let me give another simple scenario that I'm trying to achieve.
UserA is authenticated and logged in to the website.
UserA generates his own Dynamic channel name, UserAx732dsw3efsdfsdfsdf
UserA starts listening to his newly created channel UserAx732dsw3efsdfsdfsdf (Now, userA should start receiving messages from others)
- UserB sends a private message to userA. (Now, only userA should get notified on his private channel about the new private
message, how can userB or the System find out the channel
name UserAx732dsw3efsdfsdfsdf because, this is a private channel
generated dynamically by userA , neither the System or
userB has accessed to it. This same thing is happening for userB as well, if userB should be notified by any other entity or by the system again, there should be a way to find out the dynamic
channel name of userB .
Another issue is this scenario is that, if a user is dynamically generating channel name everytime he/she logged in to the website. What will happen to all the messages that was sent to the dynamic channel ? Do pubnub saves all the created channel names on their server? Is there any way that a system or a user can find out whether a channel name is still being own and atleast one user is listening to the channel ?.
I'm curious to know this because of the following concepts that I have:
UserA creates dynamicChannelA when he/she logged in to the website at 1AM.
UserA starts getting lots of notification pushout to his dynamic channel dynamicChannelA
Now, UserA logs out from the website at 1:30 AM, what will happen to the many other users who are still pushing out notification
to his dynamicChannelA because by the next time when UserA
logs into the website, UserA will be listening to different
dynamic channel name.UserA won't be listening to his previous
channel dynamicChannelA .
I'm thinking to use the method of retrieving channel name of a particular user from the database table. Is there any method or way to prevent unauthorised subscription of the channel? Because anybody can subscribe to the channel name if they have the subscribe key and channel name no matter how long the channel name is. I'm just curious because all subscription is happening in the client side and the subscription key and channel names are visible.
There's no one single way of tackling the issues that you've run into. Our customers have used a wide variety of design patterns to deal with them. I myself have run into this type of thing building PubNub apps and I'll help you as much as I can.
Pubnub says its not a good thing to create more than two channels per client. So, in my application, i have a requirement to create more than two channels to listen to notifications happening everywhere on my website but i will go with two channels for every logged in users as Pubnub suggested.
Logged in users listens to Channel1-Public
Logged in users listens to private UsersOwnDynamic-Channel to receive notifications related and only meant for him.
This is a good way to do it, and the way many of our massive scale customers do it. A global channel and a private, user-only channel.
A.
Do i always have to create a new private Dynamic channel name everytime i logged into the website.
Not necessarily, though this is a good way. You can use PUBNUB.uuid() in JavaScript on the client-side to do this. Or, generate it server-side using PHP and render it to the client. Maybe you could set it as a cookie so the client always has access to it.
If so, how would other users know how to send a notification to my private Channel.
They could get the id's from the PHP server; either via the global channel or the user's own private channel, which they are listening to.
Or, do i just need to have only one static channel name stored in database table, so that other authenticated users will query the table and get my private channel name to sent me notifications.
You could do it this way too. You might have the global channel the users can send to be different then the global channel they are listening to. Only the server has that subscribe key. Thus, authenticated users send a message to the server that tells it "I need the appropriate user keys", then the server does a query and sends a message back on that users private channel.
If this is the case, don't you think if a hacker get hold of some private channel name of certain users, they will be able to listen to that channel?
If you withhold the subscribe key on the global send channel, only the server can see the chatter on that channel.
B.
Im using PHP and mysql, so i still cannot think out a way or come up with a solution to send message to private channels of another user.
Lets take an example for a simple friend request system.
- UserA sends a friend request to UserB.
- UserB is listening to his own dynamic private channel name called DynamicPrivateChannelB
(how will UserA find the channel name for UserB which is private? Im thinking the only way for this is that the private channel of UserB should be stored in a database table for every loggedin users to query. Am i thinking the right way ? )
This is very similar to your previous question. There's no one way to do it, but the design pattern I outlined above should work. To recap this design pattern:
Server side
Listens on Global-user-send-channel for user messages. The server is the only entity that has this subscribe key
Can query db to get user-ids, and then send to the various ids at will
Can also send on the Global-user-receive-channel, which all clients are listening on. The server is the only entity that has this publish key.
Client side
Listens on Global-user-receive-channel. This is how it gets mass server broadcasts. Cannot send on this channel (only has subscribe key)
Sends server messages on Global-user-send-channel. Cannot recieve on this channel (only has publish key)
Listens on private user channel. This is how user gets private messages. It can also use this for client-to-client communication.
Prevent abuse by appending all private messages with a private, per-user key stored on the server, and provided during the initial page-load. That way, a client knows if a message claiming to be from the server is legit.
C.
If we are always generating dynamic private channel names, storing in database table, updating whenever new dynamic channel names are generated. I think it will cause a problem because some message won't get delivered as new dynamic private channel names replaces old ones.
If you're careful about when you generate new channel names, this shouldn't be a problem. Keep in mind, the client can always say on the Global-user-send-channel 'hey, I'm here! this is my id. keep me updated'. I usually design my apps to have the clients automatically shout this out every 30 seconds or so.
D.
So, i have many notifications to sent to a single channel like New Friends request, New Private message replies, New gifts requests and many others like that. How do i sent all these data to a channel and how to find out and parse the incoming new notifications data. I know JSON is the format to send but im not sure about the format of sending.
JSON is good for sending and recieving. The way I do it is to have a property called "name" which defines what type of message it is. For example:
{
"id" : "blah_blah_unique_id", // sender_client_id
"name" : "friend_request", // type of message
"data" : { // the data itself
"requested_friend_id" : "blah_blah_some_other_unique_id"
}
}
You can actually use whatever format you want, but we'll wrap it in JSON (usually that means just wrapped in quotes) when it gets pushed through PubNub.
Hope this helps!
New Questions
According to this link, a single Pubnub channel can contain only upto 100 messages. Does it mean that if 200 messages comes at once to a single channel the first 100 gets delivered and the remaining is on queue ? How about if 10,000 messages comes at once to a single channel ? Do all the remaining messages stays in queue ? if so, how does it gets delivered to the subscriber in realtime ?
The 100 message limit is in regards to PubNub.history. If someone is subscribed and 200 messages come in, they will receive all 200 messages.
(Now, only userA should get notified on his private channel about the new private message, how can userB or the System find out the channel name UserAx732dsw3efsdfsdfsdf because, this is a private channel generated dynamically by userA , neither the System or userB has accessed to it. This same thing is happening for userB as well, if userB should be notified by any other entity or by the system again, there should be a way to find out the dynamic channel name of userB .
There's no one-size-fits-all solution to this question, but what I'd do is have the server generate that unique id on page load and render it to the client on your initial HTTP request.
Another issue is this scenario is that, if a user is dynamically generating channel name everytime he/she logged in to the website. What will happen to all the messages that was sent to the dynamic channel ? Do pubnub saves all the created channel names on their server?
You don't have to dynamically generate every time. You could.... but you also set a cookie with that unique id, or pull it from the database and render it to the client on page load (that's what I'd do). We don't save channel names.
Is there any way that a system or a user can find out whether a channel name is still being own and atleast one user is listening to the channel ?.
Not out of the box, but you could implement this easily. Just have your server send out a ping and set up your clients to always respond to pings if they're listening.
Now, UserA logs out from the website at 1:30 AM, what will happen to the many other users who are still pushing out notification to his dynamicChannelA because by the next time when UserA logs into the website, UserA will be listening to different dynamic channel name.UserA won't be listening to his previous channel dynamicChannelA .
The way you can prevent this is periodic (every 30 seconds?) pings from the server, who can keep track if users are still there. In the coming months we'll be launching a presence API to do this automatically, btw.
Im thinking to use the method of retrieving channel name of a particular user from the database table. Is there any method or way to prevent unauthorised subscription of the channel? Because anybody can subscribe to the channel name if they have the subscribe key and channel name no matter how long the channel name is. Im just curious because all subscription is happening in the client side and the subscription key and channel names are visible
The main way is strategically witholding publish/subscribe keys. You're right that anyone with the proper details can listen in - this is a big problem of client-only systems. For the time being, you'll have to come up with creative ways to get around it.