I have a twisted server using SSL sockets and using certificates to identify the different clients that connect to the server. I'd like to enforce the state where there is only one connection by each possible id. The two ways I can think of is to keep track of connected ids and then not allow a second connection by the same id or allow the second connection and immediately terminate the first. I'm trying to do the later but am having some issues (I'll explain my choice at the end)
I'm storing a list of connections in the factory class and then after the SSL handshake I compare the client's id with that list. If it's already in that list I try to call .transport.abortConnection() on it. I then want to do the normal things I do to record the new connection in my database. However, the call to abortConnection() doesn't seem to call connectionLost() directly which is where I do my cleanup and calls to the database to say that a connection was lost. So, my code then records that the id connected but later a call is made to connectionLost() resulting in the database appearing to have that id disconnected.
Is there some sort of way to block the incoming second connection from further processing until the first connection has finished processing the disconnection?
Choice explanation: The whole reason I'm doing this is I have clients behind NATs that appear to be changing their IP address on a fairly regular basis (once a every 1-3 days). The devices connecting will just have their connections uncleanly severed and then they try to reconnect with the new IP. However, my server isn't notified about the disconnect and usually has to timeout the connection. Before the server times out the connection, though, the client sometimes manages to reconnect and the server then is in a state with two apparent connections by the same client. So, typically the first connection is the one I really want to terminate.
Once you have determined the ID of the connection, you can call self.transport.pauseProducing() on the "new" connection's transport, which will prevent any notifications until you call self.transport.resumeProducing(). You can then call newConnection.transport.resumeProducing() from oldConnection.connectionLost(), if a new connection exists.
Related
I am building a WebRTC app where two users are selected at random and then connect to each other to chat. Both clients keep an open WebSocket connection and I am planning to use this to exchange their offers/answers to signal a connection. The case I am trying to account for is when there is a peer that intentionally sends bad configuration information, and also when the peer might spontaneously disconnect in the middle of the signaling exchange.
My solution to the first case is have the server keep state of the exchange, so when the connection is first established I would expect that user A provide an offer and user B have an answer. Is this appropriate? or should this be implemented exclusively client side?
My solution to the second problem feels to me like a hack. What I am trying to do is notify the user that a match has been made and then the user will set a timeout say 20 seconds, if a connection hasn't been made in that amount of time then it should move on...
Are these appropriate solutions? How do you reliably establish a WebRTC when either peer can't be trusted? Should the signaling server be concerned with the state of the exchange?
Sounds like you're more concerned about call set up errors rather than being able to trust the identity of the remote peer. They are two very different problems.
Assuming it is the call set up errors you are concerned about you shouldn't be trying to avoid them you should be trying to make sure your application can handle them. Network connection issues are something that will always crop up and need to be handled.
Setting a timer for the establishment of a WebRTC call to complete is a logical solution. Displaying a warning to the user that the time limit is approaching also seems like a good idea. SIP is a signalling protocol and it has a defined timeout for the completion of a transaction and if it doesn't complete within that time it will generate an error response. You could use the same approach.
In few words, if I am not wrong, a session is used when I want to ensure that the packages are sent in order, and to be able to use sessions is needed a reliable connection.
But my doubt what kind of applications need that? In my case is a simple application in which a client request to a service data from a database, the service get the data from the database and send to the client the results. Also the client can requeset to add, modify or delete data from database. In this case, should I need a reliable connection and sessions or not?
Thanks.
Session presumes that for some period of time you want to retain some data. Such a period of time, as far as session is concerned, refers to client's lifecycle that is when client opens up proxy, both service along with session are created, when client closes proxy service and session terminate their actions. There is exception when closing proxy does not actually perform it right away and this occures when you invoke one-way-operation. Service will keep working as long as operation performs its action despite the fact that it previously received an order to get rid of instance.
Based on provided information I assume the best choice would be PerCall. You do not store any data between calls and every single call can be perceived separately. Additionaly, leverage of ConcurrencyMode set to multiple so as to allow services being created simultaneously.
Personally, I find session useful in MSMQ, whenever I want to specific number of messages be wrapped into single queue-message. If error occures, regardless of whether which message is in charge of it, the whole queue-message is rolled back.
Signaling is not addressed by WebRTC (even if we do have JSEP as a starting point), but from what I understand, it works that way :
client tells the server it's available at X
server holds that information and maps it to an identifier
other client comes and sends an identifier to get connection information from the first client
other client uses it to create it's one connection information and sends it to the server
server sends this to first client
both client can now talk
This is all nice and well, but what happends if a 3rd client arrives ?
You have to redo the whole things. Which suppose the first two clients are STILL connected to the server, waiting for a 3rd client to signal itself, and start the exchanging process again so they can get the 3rd client connection information.
So does it mean you are required to have to sort of permanent link to the server for each client (long polling, websocket, etc) ? If yes, is there a way to do that efficiently ?
Cause I don't see the point of having webRTC if I have to setup nodejs or tornado and make it scales to the number of my users. It doesn't sound very p2pish to me.
Please tell me I missed something.
What about a chat system? Do you really need to keep a permanent link to the server for each client? Of course, because otherwise you have no way of keeping track of a user's status. This "permanent" link can be done different ways: you mentioned WebSocket and long polling, but simple periodic XHR polling works too (although this will affect the UX, depending on the interval).
So view it like a chat system, except that the media stream is P2P for reduced latency. Once a P2P WebRTC connection is established, the server may die and, of course, the P2P connection will be kept between the two clients. What I mean is: both users may always block your server once the P2P connection is established and still be connected together in the wild Internets.
Understand me well: once the P2P connection is established, your server will not be doing any more WebRTC signalling. The connection is only needed to keep track of the statuses.
So it depends on your application. If you want to keep the statuses of users and make them visible to others, then you're in the same situation as a chat system: you need to keep a certain link, somehow, to make sure their statuses are synced. Otherwise, your server exists to connect them together and is not needed afterwards. An example of the latter situation is: a user goes to a webpage, the webpage provides him with a new room URL, the user shares this URL to another peer by another mean, the other peer joins the room, server connects them together (manages WebRTC signalling) and then forgets them. They are now connected until one of them breaks the link. Just like this reference app.
Instead of a central server keeping one connection per client, a mesh network could also be considered, albeit difficult to implement.
I have a requirement where I need to send continuous updates to my clients. Client is browser in this case. We have some data which updates every sec, so once client connects to our server, we maintain a persistent connection and keep pushing data to the client.
I am looking for suggestions of this implementation at the server end. Basically what I need is this:
1. client connects to server. I maintain the socket and metadata about the socket. metadata contains what updates need to be send to this client
2. server process now waits for new client connections
3. One other process will have the list of all the sockets opened and will go through each of them and send the updates if required.
Can we do something like this in Apache module:
1. Apache process gets the new connection. It maintains the state for the connection. It keeps the state in some global memory and returns back to root process to signify that it is done so that it can accept the new connection
2. the Apache process though has returned the status to root process but it is also executing in parallel where it going through its global store and sending updates to the client, if any.
So can a Apache process do these things:
1. Have more than one connection associated with it
2. Asynchronously waiting for new connection and at the same time processing the previous connections?
This is a complicated and ineffecient model of updating. Your server will try to update clients that have closed down. And the server has to maintain all that client data and meta data (last update time, etc).
Usually, for continuous updates ajax is used in a polling model. The client has a javascript timer that when it fires, hits a service that provides updated data. The client continues to get updates at regular intervals without having to write an apache module.
Would this model work for your scenario?
More reasons to opt for poll instead of push
Periodic_Refresh
With a little patch to resume a SUSPENDED mpm_event connection, I've got an asynchronous Apache module working. With this you can do the improved polling:
javascript connects to Apache and asks for an update;
if there's no updates, then instead of answering immediately the module uses SUSPENDED;
some time later, after an update or a timeout happens, callback fires somewhere;
callback gives an update (or a "no updates" message) to the client and resumes the connection;
client goes to step 1, repeating the poll which with Keep-Alive will use the same connection.
That way the number of roundtrips between the client and the server can be decreased and the client receives the update immediately. (This is known as Comet's Reverse Ajax, AFAIK).
I have client application that uses WCF service to insert some data to backend database. Client application is going to call service on per event basis (it can be every hour or every second).
I'm wondering what's the best way of calling that service.
Should I create communication channel and keep it open all the time, or should I close channel after each call and create it again?
The first question is whether your server needs to maintain any state about the client directly (i.e. are you doing session-like transactions?) If you are, you will need to be able to manage how the server holds the information between communications.
My initial feeling of your question is that if there is no need to leave a connection open, then close it each time and recreate a new connection on demand. This will avoid issues where a connection can be placed into a faulted state between calls. The overhead of creating and destroying connections is minimal, and it will (probably) save you a lot of time in debugging when something goes wrong.
I would think you probably wanna implement a Keep Alive pattern, with a configurable duration to inform your underlying mechanism to close the connection if past beyond the Keep-alive duration with zero communication activity.