Using the Smooch API, I am trying to obtain all of the messages sent to my Facebook appid in the past few minutes or hours.
The Get Messages REST method does exactly what I need, except for that it only returns messages from a particular appUserId. This isn't useful unless you already know what users have sent you messages. I cannot use a webhook as the application resides behind a corporate firewall. Opening the firewall to connections that originate from the outside is not an option (even with white-listing).
Is there a way to invoke the Get Messages REST method such that it will ignore the appUserId filter? Perhaps some sort of wildcard character?
GET {{url}}/{{apiVersion}}/apps/{{appId}}/appusers/{{appUserId}}/messages
Unfortunately you do need to have the appUserId (or userId) on hand in order to query user messages.
Webhooks are a pretty essential part of building a Smooch integration. If you can't receive them through your firewall, then you might consider building an intermediary service outside of your corporate network for receiving Smooch webhooks. For each webhook event you receive it would either:
Forward it through a secure tunnel into your coprorate network
Store the appUserId (or the whole event) in its own database, and provide a secure endpoint that allows your corporate network service to query that data
I'm curious to know more about your use case, e.g which Smooch channels are you integrating? With more details I might be able to improve this answer.
#alavers We would like to leverage nearly every messaging integration you offer.
#alavers You may want to consider providing a Get Messages variant that is better suited for use within a corporate firewall environment. An excellent example is the http long poll implementation provided by APIs such Amazon's SQS API. Their receiveMessage method waits for up to the specified time period but returns as soon as a message is received. This provides nearly the same performance of a webhook but eliminates the need for a customer to open their corporate firewall to connections that originate from outside the corporation. Most IT departments will approve connections that originate from within the corporation, but permitting connections that originate from the outside becomes a very difficult sell.
Related
So in ROS I have a server which provides a greetService in which new clients send their greeting requests and the reserver responds with something. The important part is that I want them to continue communicating, I have Anonymous=True for clients as I launch multiple instances of them. Let's say I want the client's topic to be CLIENTNAME_POSITION how can I get the server to subscribe and keep track of that? I'm using python by the way but a c++ response is alright too as I'm fluent in both languages.
You could create two services that the server will provide. They would be used by the client to register and unregister from the server.
When a client wants to register, it provides the topic name it will use to get the greetings within the service request. The server adds a new Publisher corresponding to the new client in a list (or a dictionary). To unregister the client sends the topic it was using and the server removes the corresponding Publisher in the list.
I made an instant messaging app using MQTT protocol.
I want to add some extra data about messages in payload like sent time ( server time not client time ) and also provide kind of server side payload sanitizing.
Is it a good idea to add a third party client with superuser privileges between message sender and message receiver on broker's local machine to do this job ?
or is there any better idea ?
by the way I'm using EMQTT as message broker.
From a pure security view having direct peer to peer traffic (without filtering and sanitising) sounds like a dangerous idea. (At least in the Internet-of-things domain I would clearly object against it.)
Why? Because the clients are outside of your control (i.e. a hacker can re-engineer) and inject any traffic to exploit security holes on the receiving side of other clients.
So sanitising on the server side sounds like a very good idea.
I would suggest two topics: One (inbound) topic the clients use to publish messages, and another (outbound) topic used by clients to subscribe to messages. A server side component would then read the messages from inbound topic, sanitize it and publish to the outbound topic.
This de-coupeling makes it also easier to introduce MQTT payload changed: If you update the payload in a non-compatible way, introduce a new inbound topic and keep the old inbound topic too. This allows you to support old and new clients during the transition phase.
I'm in the process of planning the development of a mail-server to hand the sending of email across our multiple websites. Below is a description of what we are planning to implement and I'd like your opinion/suggestions.
We use ASP.NET MVC and have many web-sites hosted on Azure. We currently send mail internally within each of the web applications using SMTPServer.Send(). Obviously this is not the ideal way to send emails when you have a decently busy set of websites because the send mail call is blocking and cannot guarantee mails are sent. With this I'm worried out getting an influx of mail requests when we launch our next website (we think it'll get a decent amount of traffic and lots of emails will be sent).
My plan of action : to build a centralised mail-server that runs in the background (we use azure and this will be simply another web-application). When each one of our web applications wants to send a mail, instead of doing this internally, it'll call a web method on the mail-server called sendMail() this function will accept certain parameters and insert the mail parameters, content etc. into a database. The mail server will then poll the database at fixed time intervals, select a set of unsent emails and attempt to send them using the same SMTPServer.Send() function. If an email fails for some reason we won't flag it as sent and in the next poll interval the email will be selected again and another send attempt will be made. (we will cap the number of send attempts to say 20).
This will allow each of the websites to run smoothly without having loads of blocking send mail calls internally and the mail server will handle all the sending sequentially and in a controlled environment as a separate standalone web-application.
Thanks in advance!
Looks like a good design, Don't know the entire scenario which let to you building something like an email server. The problem has been solved well by using a service that already exist like Office 365.
Your design is good, My suggestions would be the following,
You can use Azure WebJobs to build the polling agent. You can make the web job run as a scheduled web job that does the polling and sending the mail and it can be written very clean as a simple console app.
You can use Azure API App to build the SendMail() call and you can use the Azure AD Auth on the API to authenticate the caller of the API using the Authentication and Authorization feature to easily secure your email server. You can also enable CORS easily as well to make sure you receive requests from other websites and process it.
Some issues I foresee for you,
Volume and Scaling : You can only process so much email between each polling. If you cannot then you will need to create another polling agent which will making things complicated as they need to know they are picking different sets of emails to send. If you volume is going to be low you should be fine.
Challenge : Why can't the websites send the mail them selves ? And then record it on the database for tracking. All you have to do build module or a component that they use on their web page to create and send the mail. Polymer 1.0 works well for this scenario.
Hope this helps to get you started.
I am to build a web application which will accept different events from external sources and present them quickly to the user for further actions. I want to use Ruby on Rails for the web application. This project is a internal development project. I would prefer simple and easy to use solutions for rapid development over high reliable and complex systems.
What it should do
The user has the web application opened in his browser. Now an phone call comes is. The phone call is registered by a PBX monitoring daemon. In this case via the Asterisk Manager Interface. The daemon sends the available information (remote extension, local extension, call direction, channel status, start time, end time) somehow to the web application. Next the user receives a notified about the phone call event. The user now can work with this. For example by entering a summary or by matching the call to a customer profile.
The duration from the first event on the PBX (e.g. the creation of a new channel) to the popup notification in the browser should be short. Given a fast network I would like to be within two seconds. The single pieces of information about an event are created asynchronously. The local extension may be supplied separate from the remote extension. The user can enter a summary before the call has ended. The end time, new status etc. will show up on the interface as soon as one party has hung up.
The PBX monitor is just one data source. There will be more monitors like email or a request via a web form. The monitoring daemons will not necessarily run on the same host as the database or web server. I do not image the application will serve thousands of logged in users or concurrent requests soon. But from the design 200 users with maybe about the same number of events per minute should not be a scalability issue.
How should I do?
I am interested to know how you would design such an application. What technologies would you suggest? How do the daemons communicate their information? When and by whom is the data about an event stored into the main database? How does the user get notified? Should the browser receive a complete dataset on behalf of a daemon or just a short note that new data is available? Which JS library to use and how to create the necessary code on the server side?
On my research I came across a lot of possibilities: Message brokers, queue services, some rails background task solutions, HTTP Push services, XMPP and so on. Some products I am going to look into: ActiveMQ, Starling and Workling, Juggernaut and Bosh.
Maybe I am aiming too hight? If there is a simpler or easier way, like just using the XML or JSON interface of Rails, I would like to read this even more.
I hope the text is not too long :)
Thanks.
If you want to skip Java and Flash, perhaps it makes sense to use a technology in the Comet family to do the push from the server to the browser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_%28programming%29
For the sake of simplicity, for notifications from daemons to the Web browser, I'd leave Rails in the middle, create a RESTful interface to that Rails application, and have all of the daemons report to it. Then in your daemons you can do something as simple as use curl or libcurl to post the notifications. The Rails app would then be responsible for collecting the incoming notifications from the various sources and reporting them to the browser, either via JavaScript using a Comet solution or via some kind of fatter client implemented using Flash or Java.
You could approach this a number of ways but my only comment would be: Push, don't pull. For low latency it's not only quicker it's more efficient, as your server now doesn't have to handle n*clients once a second polling the db/queue. ActiveMQ is OK, but Starling will probably serve you better if you're not looking for insane levels of persistence.
You'll almost certainly end up using Flash on the client side (Juggernaut uses it last time I checked) or Java. This may be an issue for your clients (if they don't have Flash/Java installed) but for most people it's not an issue; still, a fallback mechanism onto a pull notification system might be prudent to implement.
Perhaps http://goldfishserver.com might be of some use to you. It provides a simple API to allow push notifications to your web pages. In short, when your data updates, send it (some payload data) to the Goldfish servers and your client browsers will be notified, with the same data.
Disclaimer: I am a developer working on goldfish.
The problem
There is an event - either external (or perhaps internally within your app).
Users should be notified.
One solution
I am myself facing this problem. I haven't solved it yet, but this is how I intend to do it. It may help you too:
(A) The app must learn about the event (via an exposed end point)
Expose an end point by which you app can be notified about external events.
When the end point is hit (and after authentication then users need to be notified).
(B) Notification
You can notify the user directly by changing the DOM on the current web page they are on.
You can notify users by using the Push API (but you need to make sure your browsers can target that).
All of these notification features should be able to be handled via Action Cable: (i) either by updating the DOM to notify you when a phone call comes in, or (ii) via a push notification that pops up in your browser.
Summary: use Action Cable.
(Also: why use an external service like Pusher, when you have ActionCable at your disposal? Some people say scalability, and infrastructure management. But I do not know enough to comment on these issues. )
When a user completes an order at my online store, he gets an email confirmation.
Currently we're sending this email via Gmail (which we chose over sendmail for greater portability) after we authorize the user's credit card and before we show him a confirmation message (i.e., synchronously).
It's working fine in development, but I'm wondering if this will cause a problem in production. Will it require making the user wait too long? Will many simultaneous Gmail connections get us in trouble? Any other general caveats?
If sending the emails synchronously will be a problem, could someone recommend an asynchronous solution (is ar_mailer any good?)
The main issue I can think of is that Gmail limits the amount of email you can send daily, so if you get too many orders a day it might break.
As they say :
"In an effort to fight spam and
prevent abuse, Google will temporarily
disable your account if you send a
message to more than 500 recipients or
if you send a large number of
undeliverable messages. If you use a
POP or IMAP client (Microsoft Outlook
or Apple Mail, e.g.), you may only
send a message to 100 people at a
time. Your account should be
re-enabled within 24 hours. "
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=22839
I would recommend using sendmail on your server in order to have greater control over what's going on and don't depend on another service, especially when sendmail is not really complicated to set up.
The internet is not as resilient as some people would have you believe, the link between you and GMail will break at some point or GMail will go offline causing the user to think that they have not paid sucessfully.
I would put some other queue in place, sendmail sounds acceptable and you can't create your site now for where it 'might' be hosted in the future.
Ryan
If the server waits for the email to be sent before giving the user any feedback, were there problems connecting to the mailserver (timeouts, server down etc) the user request would timeout too and he wouldn't be told anything about the status of his order, so I believe you should really do this asynchronously.
Also, you should check whether doing that is even allowed by GMail's TOS. If that's not the case, you may check if that's allowed if you purchase one of their subscriptions. Also, there's surely a limit to the number of outgoing emails you may send within a given timeframe so if you're expecting your online store to be successful, you may hit that limit and bump into some nasty issue. If you're not self-hosting the site, you should check whether your host offers email servers (several plans include them for free) as then using your host's ISP would be the most obvious choice.
FACT: Gmail crashes. Not often, but it happens, and you can't control it or test it.
The simplest quick-fix is to start a separate thread or fork a subprocess to send the email. Yes, there likely will arise problems from using Gmail, and I really have no input on that vs. the alternatives. But from a design perspective, there's just no reason to make the user wait for that process to complete.
From a testing perspective, this might be where a proxy pattern might come in handy. It might be easy for you to directly invoke Gmail to send a message. Make it harder. Put in a proxy object that does the mailing for you that you can turn off (because heaven knows you can't for testing purposes make Gmail crash). Just make your team follow what happens in the event of an email malfunction by turning off the proxy and trying to complete an order. If you are doing it synchronously, then all the plagues mentioned here by other posters will rear their heads. If you are doing it asynchronously, you should be able to allow it to fail silently (from the user's perspective--from your perspective there should be enormous logging statements and text messages in the middle of the night and possibly a mild electric current arcing across the surface of someone's skin).