Please read before tagging as duplicate.
I'm creating a set of applications which rely on smart cards for authentication. Up to now, each application has controlled the smart card reader individually. In a few weeks, some of my customers will be using more than one application at the same time. So, I thought maybe it would be more practical to create a service application which controls the authentication process. I'd like my desktop applications to tell the service application they are interested in the authentication process, and the service application would then provide them with information about current user. This part is easy, using named pipes. The hard part is, how can the service tell the desktop applications that an event has occurred (UserLogIn, UserLogOut, PermissionsChanged, ... to name a few). So far I have two methods in mind. CallBack functions, and Messages. Does anyone have a better idea? I'm sure someone has.
You want do to IPC (Inter Process Communication) with Delphi.
There are many links that can help you, Cromis IPC is just one to give you an idea what you are after.
A similar SO question to yours is here.
If you want to go pure Windows API, then take a look at how OutputDebugString communications is implemented.
Several tools can listen to the mechanism and many apps can send information to it.
Search for DBWIN_DATA_READY and DbWin32 for more information on how the protocol for OutputDebugString works.
This and this are good reading.
When it gets into IPC, some tips:
Do not be tied on one protocol: for instance, if you implements named pipe communication, you would later perhaps need to run it over a network, or even over HTTP;
Do not reinvent the wheel, nor use proprietary messages, but standard formats (like XML / JSON / BSON);
Callbacks events are somewhat difficult to implement, since the common pattern could be to implement a server for each Desktop client, to receive notifications from the server.
My recommendation is not to use callbacks, but polling on a stateless architecture, on the Desktop applications. You open a communication channel with the server, then every second / half second (use a TTimer in your UI), you make a small request asking for what did change (you can put a revision number or a time stamp of your last retrieval). Therefore, you synchronize your desktop data with pending events. Asking for updates on an existing connection is very fast, and will just send one IP packet over the network back and forth, if nothing changed. It is a very small task, and won't slow down nor the client nor the server (if you use some in-memory cache).
On practice, with real application, such a stateless architecture is very responsive, from the end-user point of view, and is much more easy to deploy. You do not need to create a server on each desktop application, so you don't have to open firewall ports or such. Since HTTP is stateless, it is even Internet friendly.
If you want to develop services, you can use DataSnap, something like RemObjects or you can try our Open Source mORmot framework which is able to create interface-based services with light JSON messages over REST, either in-process, using GDI messages, named pipes or TCP/HTTP - for free, with unbeatable performance, build-in security, and from Delphi 6 up to XE2. For your event-based task, just using the Client-Server ORM available in mORMot could be enough: create a table/class storing the events (you can even define a round-robin in-memory storage - no need to use SQLite3 engine nor a DB here), then ask for all pending events since the last refresh. And the server can safely be a background service, or a normal application - some mORMot users even have the same executable able to be either a stand-alone application, a server service, an application server, or a UI client, just by changing the configuration.
Edit / announcement:
On the mORMot roadmap, we added a new upcoming feature, to easily implement one-way callbacks from the server.
That is, add transparent "push" mode to our Service Oriented Architecture framework.
Aim is to implement notification events triggered from the server side, very easily from Delphi code, via some interface definitions, even over a single HTTP connection - for instance, WCF does not allow this: it will need a dual binding, so will need to open a firewall port and such.
It will used for easy Event Collaboration, via a publish / subscribe pattern, and allow Event Sourcing. I will try to make it implement the two modes: polling and lock-and-wait. A direct answer to your question.
You can use a simple TCP socket connection (bidirectional) to allow asynchronous server to client messages on the same socket.
An example is the Indy TIdTelnetClient class, it uses a thread for incoming messages from the server.
You can build a similar text-based protocol and only need a Indy TCP server instance in the service, and one Indy Client instance in the application(s).
Related
I want to implement a peer-to-peer video chat feature for a web application I am currently developing. After doing my research, I've decided that using webRTC's Javascript APIs is the way to go. The application uses AngularJS in the front end and Ruby on Rails in the back end. The main issue I'm encountering while conceptualizing this application is linking the front end with the backend, and creating and maintaining the connection between user streams.
For the signaling aspect of the network, I want to utilize ActionController::Live and the Ruby gem em-event source to push live messages from the server to users and indicate which of their connections are online. Then, when they are ready to make a connection, they will create a custom room and the URL will be sent to the user that they wish to connect with, creating their offer. Once the user clicks on the link sent to them, they send back their answer. When the user responds, the ICE candidate process will begin for each of the users. Do you think that this is a sufficient signaling channel to set up the PeerConnection? What other major players am I missing?
From the research that I have done about WebRTC's RTCPeerConnection, once the initial connection is set up, and both users have public IP addresses corresponding to their stream, the connection is sustained through RTCPeerConnection, more specifically getPeerConnection(). Am I wrong? Are there other factors that I am not considering?
WebRTC makes the process of creating MediaStreams very simple with their getUserMedia method. Once these streams are created they can be added to the RTCPeerConnection that was established. Both as local and remote streams.
If you have any other suggestions for me, please let me know. I want to create this feature using webRTC, it seems like so much fun
There are certainly many ways to handle the call signaling so I'm not going to comment specifically on your approach. I will say that if you plan on supporting ICE trickling the ICE candidates will start flowing very early in the process so you really need an open signalling channel between your peers almost immediately when trying to connect to a peer.
We developed our solution for WebSphere on top of MQTT which is an open, and very simple pub/sub protocol. You can use any open MQTT broker with the protocol and there are a number of open source components available to make WebRTC development extremely easy including an AngularJS WebRTC module (angular-rtcomm), a core pure JavaScript module and much more. We also released a simple JSON based protocol as part of this open source solution. You can take a look at the signaling protocol. You can also read more details about the overall solution here (www.wasdev.net/webrtc). Here you'll find the base JavaScript libraries as well as a number of open source sample solutions. All of these can be forked on github.
In general you want to build your signaling on a protocol that will allow you to grow over time. It should work well for the web and mobile apps. From our experience it took a lot of time to get all this to work well and our goal was to not only support peer-to-peer calls but to support using media resources like Dialogic's XMS PowerMedia server on the backend for multiway support, record/playback and more. We also needed to support federation via SIP trunking so we wanted to make sure the protocol could be easily translated to SIP signaling while also supporting transcoding between media protocols like VP8 and H.264.
Note that if you're looking to only support peer-to-peer calling between WebRTC clients you can do that with these rtcomm open source components only, including an open MQTT broker and save yourself a ton of time. You can literally get something up and running in a matter of hours. The developer version of the WebSphere Liberty beta with the new rtcomm-1.0 service enabled also includes a built in MQTT broker and supports the open WebRTC signaling protocol linked above. You can use WebSphere for development and deploy a single server of this in production for free. You can also use Ruby on Rails with Liberty as well if you'd like.
Even if you decide not to use Liberty you can use all the open source components along with something like Mosquito (which is an open source MQTT broker) to get a solution off the ground quickly. There are also a number of MQTT clients available for many different programming languages including JavaScript, Java, etc. Check out https://eclipse.org/paho/. If you decide to build you're own signaling protocol you might still find these open source components helpful to see how we approached integration with the WebRTC PeerConnection.
I have a software architecture problem.
I have to design an IOS application which will communicate with a Linux application to get the state of a sensor, and to publish an actuator command. The two applications run in a Local network with an Ad-Hoc WiFi connection between the IOS device and the Linux computer.
So I have to synchronize two values between two applications (as described in figure 1). In a Linux/Linux system, I resolve this kind of problem thanks to any publisher / subscriber middleware. But how can I solve this problem in an IOS / Linux world ?
Actually the Linux application embed an asynchronous TCP Server, and the IOS application is an asynchronous TCP client. Both applications communicate through the TCP Socket. I think that this method is a low level method, and I would like to migrate the communication layer to a much higher level Service based communication framework.
After some bibliographic research I found three ways to resolve my problem :
The REST Way :
I can create a RESTful Web Service which modelize the sensor state, and which is able to send command to the actuator. An implementation of a RESTful web service client exists for IOS, that is "RESTKit", and I think I can use Apache/Axis2 on the server side.
The RPC Way :
I can create on my Linux computer a RPC service provider thanks to the libmaia. On the IOS side, I can use xmlrpc (https://github.com/eczarny/xmlrpc). My two programs will communicate thanks to the service described in the figure below.
The ZeroConf way :
I didn't get into detail of this methods, but I suppose I can use Bonjour on the IOS side, and AVAHI on the linux side. And then create custom service like in RPC on both side.
Discussion about these methods :
The REST way doesn't seem to be the good way because : "The REST interface is designed to be efficient for large-grain hypermedia data transfer" (from the Chapter 5 of the Fielding dissertation). My data are very fined grain data, because my command is just a float, and my sensor state too.
I think there is no big difference between the ZeroConf way and the RPC Way. ZeroConf provide "only" the service discovering mechanism, and I don't need this kind of mechanism because my application is a rigid application. Both sides knows which services exists.
So my question are :
Does XML RPC based method are the good choice to solve my problem of variable synchronization between an iPhone and a Computer ?
Does it exist other methods ?
I actually recommend you use "tcp socket + protobuf" for your application.
Socket is very efficient in pushing messages to your ios app and protobuf can save your time to deliver a message instead of character bytes. Your other high level proposal actually introduces more complications...
I can provide no answers; just some things to consider in no particular order.
I am also assuming that your model is that the iOS device polls the server to synchronize state.
It is probably best to stay away from directly using Berkeley sockets on the iOS device. iOS used to have issues with low level sockets not connecting after a period of inactivity. At the very least I would use NSStream or CFStream objects for transport or, if possible, I'd use NSURL, NSURLConnection, NSURLRequest. NSURLConnection's asynchronous data loading capability fits well with iOS' gui update loop.
I think you will have to implement some form of data definition language independent of your implementation method (RES, XML RPC, CORBA, roll your own, etc.)
The data you send and receive over the wire would probably be XML or JSON. If you use XML you would have to write your own XML document handler as iOS implements the NSXMLParser class but not the NSXMLDocument class. I would refer JSON as the JSON parser will return an NSArray or NSDictionary hierarchy of NSObjects containing the unserialized data.
I have worked on a GSOAP implementation that used CFStreams for transport. Each request and response was handled by a request specific class to create request specific objects. Each new request required a new class definition for the returned data. Interactivity was maintained by firing the requests through an NSOperationQueue. Lots of shim here. The primary advantage of this method was that the interface was defined in a wsdl schema (all requests, responses, and data structures were defined in one place.
I have not looked at CORBA on iOS - you would have to tie in C++ libraries to your code and change the transport to use CFStreams Again, lots of shim but the advantage of having the protocol defined in the idl file. Also you would have a single connection to the server instead of making and breaking TCP connections for each request.
My $.02
XML RPC and what you refer to as "RESTful Web Service" will both get the job done. If you can use JSON instead of XML as the payload format, that would simplify things somewhat on the iOS side.
Zeroconf (aka bonjour) can be used in combination with either approach. In your case it would allow the client to locate the server dynamically, as an alternative to hard-coding an URL or other address in the client. Zeroconf doesn't play any role in actual application-level data transfer.
You probably want to avoid having the linux app call the iOS app, since that will complicate the iOS app a lot, plus it will be hard on the battery.
You seem to have cherry picked some existing technologies and seem to be trying to make them fit the problem.
I would like to migrate the communication layer to a much higher level Service based communication framework
Why?
You should be seeking the method which meets your requirements in terms of available resources (should you assume that the client can maintain a consistent connection? how secure does it need to be?) However besides functionality, availability and security, the biggest concern should be how to implement this with the least amount of effort.
I'd be leaning towards the REST aproach because:
I do a lot of web development so that's where my skills lie
it has minimal dependencies
there is well supported code implementing the protocol stack at both ends
it's trivial to replace either end of the connection to test out the implementation
it's trivial to monitor the communications (if they're not encrypted) to test the implementaiton
adding encryption / authentication does not change the data exchange
Regards your citation, no HTTP is probably not the most sensible for SCADA - but then neither is iOS.
On non-web based chat system the server distinguishes its clients by their PIDs, right? And what should be used to distinguish the clients on web-based chat system?
Thnx in advance
The fact that you're using a web server shouldn't change much about your model. You're still building chat. You also don't want to make your chats tied too deeply to the process that is managing their HTTP connection. HTTP connections are ephemeral, even if everything is going well and you're using long polling there's no guarantee that the connection will be re-used with Keep-Alive for the next long poll. The user might also want to open up the same chat in multiple browser windows, multiple computers, whatever.
I haven't looked closely at any of these but you're not the first person that has built web chat with Erlang:
http://chrismoos.com/2009/09/28/building-an-erlang-chat-server-with-comet-part-1/
http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/31/EugeneLetuchy-ErlangatFacebook.pdf
http://yoan.dosimple.ch/blog/2008/05/15/
https://github.com/yrashk/socket.io-erlang (more of a general tool for this sort of thing, not chat specifically)
https://github.com/rvirding/chat_demo (as seen above)
I think the confusion comes from the notion that a Erlang server process must stay alive for every individual client. It can, but Mochiweb doesn't do that by default if I'm not mistaken. It just spawns a new process for every request. If you would like to have a long lived bidirectional client <-> server process connection you can do that for example by;
sending a client identifier with every request and map that to a long-lived process on the server. The process will maintain servers state and you can call methods on it. It's still pull and not push though.
use the web socket implementations. Not sure if Mochiweb has one, but other Erlang HTTP servers like Misultin and Yaws provide one. For a web based chat system I believe web sockets would be a great fit.
For a very trivial example of a web-based chat system using websockets and Misultin you can check out this chat demo. It was written to demonstrate an idea and is not very elegant, but it does work.
I have a Client/Server application written Delphi. Essentially all the application is doing is transferring xml data streams between a server application and connected clients. I am currently using the Indy TIdTCPServer component. But the server side application keeps crashing on some of my installments. And it has been extremely difficult to debug. So I am wondering if there is some "architecture" I should be utilizing which does all the tcp/ip connection management and database connection pooling, allowing me to concentrate on the business logic.
Here are more details:
clients must maintain a "persistent" connection. There are times when the server must notify and send data to all connected clients.
clients are connecting from laptop computers using wireless aircards. So network "drops" are pretty common.
Backend database is SqlServer.
There can be upward of 100 computers simultaneously connected at a time.
When the server gets a new connection (TCPServer.OnConnect) I instantiate my own object containing it own SqlServer database connection. When tcp connections are dropped I in turn free these objects (and associated database connection).
Client application have a TTimer built into them. They routinely send heartbeats to the server. And if they "drop"/"lose" their connection they automatically establish a new connection once the network is back.
Anyone have any suggestions on the best approach/architecture here?
I presume the Indy component would work, but at the same time feel I am "reinventing the wheel" with respect to managing the connections.
Three component sets I am aware of that will take care of the nitty gritty technical aspects of client server applications for you:
kbmMW: http://components4developers.com/
Asta: http://www.astatech.com/index.asp
RemObjects: http://www.remobjects.com/
You may have to rework your applications to take advantage of the way these component sets work, but assuming you have properly separated layers that shouldn't be too much of a hassle and will buy you the advantage of well tested and widely used code for your client server work.
If you want some light TCP/IP components, take a look at our SynCrtSock unit.
You'll find low-level classes to create IP Client and Servers.
We implemented both TCP/IP and UDP/IP in one of our applications.
There is also a THttpServer class, which implement a HTTP/1.1 server. Therefore it follows the HTTP/1.1 connection management. There is also an optional compression, and using HTTP/1.1 on a port other than 80 is not a bad idea. And what is good with HTTP/1.1 is that it can pass through firewalls, and can be easily be VPNed or hosted on another HTTP server (like IIS or Apache) with a proxy. There is even a FastCGI class, if you need such a server under a linux-based solution.
Of course, a THttpClientSocket class does the same on the client class.
We use these classes to add HTTP/1.1 connection to our Open Source SQLite3 RESTful framework - http://synopse.info/forum/viewforum.php?id=2
See http://synopse.info/fossil/artifact?name=722e896e3d7aad1fe217b0e2e7903483e66d66d1 for the SynCrtSock unit. Open source, work from Delphi 7 to Delphi 2010.
Misha Charrett's CSI Application Framework covers pretty much exactly what you're asking for.
It's an open source Delphi framework that at its heart is a distributed message passing and threading framework that allows XML message passing from both client to server and server to client.
It can handle disconnections/reconnections, high client numbers and there's an optional virtual database library that will handle SQL server (or you could just use same SQL Server access you're using now).
It's not particularly well known yet but I can tell you that it's been actively developed over the last few years and that the author Misha is very keen to assist anyone who's interested in using it in their application.
Well, it would probably require a complete rewrite of much of your C/S code, but instead of using the Indy components, you could try to use a COM+ solution instead. Basically, you would create a COM+ component that will be installed on the server and your client applications will connect to this client and call the functions of this component directly. It will have transaction management which will be handled by Windows itself and the same is true about handling transactions. It's also technically possible to create events, which would allow the server to do callbacks to the client, although that would make things a bit more complicated.
I don't think this solution would work out for you, though, unless you have a lot of experience with COM development in Windows and/or you're brave enough to try something different.
In the past, I had a similar problem where hundreds of clients had to connect to a single server, doing all kinds of database transactions. It has a steep learning curve but me and my team managed to get things working and once we understood the technique, it resulted in a very stable and reliable solution which did manage to have up to 500 users simultaneously doing updates and other actions in a one-time extreme stress-test. But again, the learning curse is steep, so it might not be the solution you're looking for.
(Still, COM+ will use a lot of functionality that's build-in into Windows, like transaction management, database pooling and whatever more.)
If you use Indy each connection will equal a thread.
Anyway, I suggest for connecting to MSSQL to use SDAC from Devart http://www.devart.com/sdac/ and for the connection layer to use HPScktSrvr based on I/O Completion Port from http://www.torry.net/authorsmore.php?id=7131 (I don't know though what changes it will need for TThread changes in newer VCL).
You build your client class arround THPServerClient, you set your new class as the server ClientClass and the framework will create automatically new clients for you.
You may also want to have a look at the ICS/Midware combo: http://www.overbyte.be/
I have heard that web-based chat clients tend to use networking frameworks such as the twisted framework.
But would it be possible to build a web-based chat client without a networking framework - using only ajax connections?
I would like to build a session-based one-to-one web chat client that uses sessions to indicate when a chat has ended. Would this be possible in Rails using only ajax and without a networking framework?
What effect does it have to use a networking framework and what impact would it have on my app to not use one? Also any general recommendations for approaching this project would be appreciated.
If i understand you correctly, you want to have to clients connect to you server and send messaged to each other to each other through ajax, via the server.
This is possible, there are two approaches to do this.
The easy approach is to have both client poll every few seconds to check for new messages posted by the other. Drawback is that the messages are not instantly delivered. I think this is an example found in the rails book.
The more complex approach is to keep an open connection and sent the messages to the client as soon as they are received by the server. To do this you can use something like Juggernaut
I would like to add that though the latter works, it is not something http was meant for and it a bit of hack, but hey, whatever gets the job done. A working example of this is the rails chat project which uses a juggernaut derivative.
Technically speaking every network based application has a networking framework under it and, therefore, is socket based...
The only real question here is whether you want to have all that chatter go through your server or allow point to point communication. If the former, you can use the ajax framework to talk to your web server. This means that all of your clients will be constantly polling the web server for updates.
If the later, then you have to allow direct tcp connections between the two clients and need to get a little closer to the metal so to speak.
So, ask yourself this: Do you want to pay for the traffic costs AND have potential liability over divulging whatever it is that people might be typing into their client; or, would you rather just build a chat program that people can use to talk to each other?
Of course, before even going that far, do you really want to build yet another chat client? That space is already pretty crowded.