Background: I am building a web app using NodeJS + Express. Most of the communication between client and server is REST (GET and POST) calls. I would typically use AJAX XMLHttpRequest like mentioned in https://developers.google.com/appengine/articles/rpc. And I don't seem to understand how to make my RESTful service being used for Socket.io as well.
My questions are
What scenarios should I use Socket.io over AJAX RPC?
Is there a straight forward way to make them work together. At least for Expressjs style REST.
Do I have real benefits of using socket.io(if websockets are used -- TCP layer) on non real time web applications. Like a tinyurl site (where users post queries and server responds and forgets).
Also I was thinking a tricky but nonsense idea. What if I use RESTful for requests from clients and close connection from server side and do socket.emit().
Thanks in advance.
Your primary problem is that WebSockets are not request/response oriented like HTTP is. You mention REST and HTTP interchangeably, keep in mind that REST is a methodology behind designing and modeling your HTTP routes.
Your questions,
1. Socket.io would be a good scenario when you don't require a request/response format. For instance if you were building a multiplayer game in which whoever could click on more buttons won, you would send the server each click from each user, not needing a response back from the server that it registered each click. As long as the WebSocket connection is open, you can assume the message is making it to the server. Another use case is when you need a server to contact a client sporadically. An analytics page would be a good use case for WebSockets as there is no uniform pattern as to when data needs to be at the client, it could happen at anytime.
The WebSocket connection is an HTTP GET request with a special header requesting the server to upgrade it to a WebSocket connection. Distinguishing different events and message on the WebSocket connection is up to your application logic and likely won't match REST style URIs and methods (otherwise you are replication HTTP request/reply in a sense).
No.
Not sure what you mean on the last bit.
I'll just explain more about when you want to use Socket.IO and leave the in-depth explanation to Tj there.
Generally you will choose Socket.IO when performance and/or latency is a major concern and you have a site that involves users polling for data often. AJAX or long-polling is by far easier to implement, however, it can have serious performance problems in high load situations. By high-load, I mean like Facebook. Imagine millions of people loading their feed, and every minute each user is asking the server for new data. That could require some serious hardware and software to make that work well. With Socket.IO, each user could instead connect and just indefinitely wait for new data from the server as it arrives, resulting in far less overall server traffic.
Also, if you have a real-time application, Socket.IO would allow for a much better user experience while maintaining a reasonable server load. A common example is a chat room. You really don't want to have to constantly poll the server for new messages. It would be much better for the server to broadcast new messages as they are received. Although you can do it with long-polling, it can be pretty expensive in terms of server resources.
Related
I'm trying to learn Node.js and adequate design approaches.
I've implemented a little API server (using express) that fetches a set of data from several remote sites, according to client requests that use the API.
This process can take some time (several fecth / await), so I want the user to know how is his request doing. I've read about socket.io / websockets but maybe that's somewhat an overkill solution for this case.
So what I did is:
For each client request, a requestID is generated and returned to the client.
With that ID, the client can query the API (via another endpoint) to know his request status at any time.
Using setTimeout() on the client page and some DOM manipulation, I can update and display the current request status every X, like a polling approach.
Although the solution works fine, even with several clients connecting concurrently, maybe there's a better solution?. Are there any caveats I'm not considering?
TL;DR The approach you're using is just fine, although it may not scale very well. Websockets are a different approach to solve the same problem, but again, may not scale very well.
You've identified what are basically the only two options for real-time (or close to it) updates on a web site:
polling the server - the client requests information periodically
using Websockets - the server can push updates to the client when something happens
There are a couple of things to consider.
How important are "real time" updates? If the user can wait several seconds (or longer), then go with polling.
What sort of load can the server handle? If load is a concern, then Websockets might be the way to go.
That last question is really the crux of the issue. If you're expecting a few or a few dozen clients to use this functionality, then either solution will work just fine.
If you're expecting thousands or more to be connecting, then polling starts to become a concern, because now we're talking about many repeated requests to the server. Of course, if the interval is longer, the load will be lower.
It is my understanding that the overhead for Websockets is lower, but still can be a concern when you're talking about large numbers of clients. Again, a lot of clients means the server is managing a lot of open connections.
The way large services handle this is to design their applications in such a way that they can be distributed over many identical servers and which server you connect to is managed by a load balancer. This is true for either polling or Websockets.
I have been studying web sockets recently and plan to use them in my application even though the app is not realtime. I am mostly doing this because I want to try it out and further down the line it might open more possibilites for the app's functionality. Also I am not bothered about having an API for mobile at the moment but think it would still be possible to have some kind of api over web sockets if I needed it in the future.
However for in-production apps are there any real reasons why somebody would consider implementing websockets if there is no real-time element?
Are there any benefits over HTTP requests other than the real timeness of it?
HTTP requests include the full HTTP headers. Depending on the cookie load, this may reach a couple of KB per request. WebSocket protocol headers are minimal compared to that. If you have a lot of requests and care about bandwidth then going with WebSocket makes sense.
Additionally a HTTP connection is (traditionally) negotiated for each request, which means you have overhead on each request compared to WebSocket, which has persistent connections. Connection establishment takes time (hence the advantage in real-time applications), but it also uses resources on the server. Again, depending on your app's communication patterns, using WebSocket may make sense.
Most examples I have seen are are just small demo's and not full stack applications and they use websocket for messaging, but for any chat application there is more data then just messages...suppose like user profile, his contacts etc.
So should I use websockets for all communication between server and client or just use them for sending messages and do other things through http? If I am to use websocket for all communication how do url design of the app...since websockets don't have have any different urls like http.
You might be interested in WAMP, an officially registered WebSocket subprotocol that provides applications with WebSocket based
asynchronous, bidirectional remote procedure calls
real-time publish & subscribe notifications
Disclaimer: I am original author of WAMP and work for Tavendo.
Pretty sure you'll get the usual "it depends" answer, because, well, it depends!
If you are going to build a large application, to be used by a number of different clients in different network arrangements etc then I personally wouldn't recommend using WebSockets for everything. Why?
It's a new standard, so not all clients support it
In some network configurations WebSocket traffic may be filtered out, meaning you end up with no communications - not great
If you end up exposing an external API then HTTP is much better fitted for the job and will likely be easier to code against. There are a lot more tools out there to help you with it and styles that everyone is familiar with, like REST, to follow.
Use WebSockets when you require data being pushed from the server without the client having to poll for it, or when HTTP header overhead becomes a problem. And if you still decide to use it make sure you have a fallback mechanism (e.g. longpolling) so you don't end up with no comms.
I'm afraid I can't help you regarding WebSocket API design... given it's a new standard I don't believe the community has settled on anything just yet so you'll have to come out with your own message-based scheme.
I am developing a node/express RESTful server with normal routes and HTTP request and response. Now I am asked to extend the server to provide near real time data to clients using socket.io or some such thing.
I feel like the real time update requires a client and serve connection management and client state management on the server and that on its own is orthogonal to the RESTful aspects of my server. For a client, to get continuous data feed from a RESTful server, the client has to "poll" for it.
Is my statement correct? If not, is there a pattern for providing the two features?
Correct, RESTful services are contrary to the stateful client/server connection needed to give real time I/O. Without knowing how much data your talking about RESTful would be very expensive in I/O.
No, there's no contradiction. Each HTTP request takes a round-trip to set-up, and many more if you support SSL (which you should), or do most forms of authentication. Socket.io lets you minimize those setups, by leaving the connection open and authenticated, ready for the next request. You could do something fancy with the 100 Continue header, following section 8.2.3 of the spec: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec8.html
But, just doing normal RESTful https pull requests over socket.io should show a meaningful decrease in latency, by minimizing the need to re-establish connections. Of course, implementing full server push support will lower latency even more.
The tradeoff is increased complexity (though socket.io can be implemented in Express in a few lines), and increased memory consumption by leaving sockets open.
I am looking to build an web application using node.js and possibly socket.io but I am having a lots of confusion regarding whether to use socket.io or go with plain http. In the app the node.js server will be basically an api server which serves json to the javascript client or may be mobile clients too. The web app will also has chat messeneger for its users, this is where socket.io comes in.
I am not sure whether to use socket.io for the whole app or only for the chat part. Although my app itself could benefit from socket.io but its nothing that I think can't be done using plain http and client making more requests to the server.
I have read at several places that sometimes socket.io can be difficult to scale for more users.
Socket.io often crashes and specially creates probs when there are firewall in clients system.
More importantly.....I checked out socket.io user list and did not find many users, so was curious to know what kind of platform is more know chat network like facebook messenger, google talk etc are built upon, Are any built using http-ajax and continues querying to the server.
Please help me out in solving this question. Some might argue that this is a opinion based question. But what actually I am trying to figure out the implementation of socket.io and its limitation.
I would suggest serving your API over HTTP and leave the real-time business to Socket.io. If you are adverse to using Websockets, like #GeoPheonix stated, you can choose from a variety of transport methods using both socket.io and sockjs (https://github.com/sockjs/sockjs-node).
As far as scaling is concerned, I deployed a socket.io based real-time analytics/tracking service for a very large application with ana average of 400+ concurrent connections with no visible performance impact, but this may depend on the implementation and hardware.
Socket.io is faster than plain http. I recommend you to use it for all since you have to have a chat in first place.
In my case, real-time Texas Hold'em-like game can receive up to 2500 concurrent with one node process. However, if you change transport from websocket to xhr-polling, It can receive like more 10x than pure websocket. Your application is just chat so, I guess a little slow down wouldn't be a problem. If you sure you will exceed this number, yes, scale socket.io is a pain.
This problem will happen only if you open socket.io for port other than 80 and 443. If you have frontend web server with other language already, you can still use socket.io on another subdomain to be able to run on port 80 without conflict with your main frontend web server. Socket.io support cross-domain without a problem.
Have you used trello.com? If not, try it :). It's best for task management or even some Agile thing. They used socket.io. https://c9.io/ is another one. It's online IDE with google doc-like collaborative. One thing to note is xhr-polling trasport in socket.io is the same with http-ajax with long-polling (Better than general ajax). You can read more info at:
http://book.mixu.net/node/ch13.html