Chatroom functionality with WCF, duplex callbacks vs polling?

Question

I am using WCF and I am putting a chatroom facility in my C# program. So I need to be able to send information from the server to the clients for two events -

• When a user connects/disconnects I update the list of connected users and send that back to all clients for display in a TextBlock
• When a user posts a message, I need the server to send that message out to all clients

So I am looking for advice on the best way of implementing this. I was going to use netTcpBinding for duplex callbacks to clients but then I ran into some issues regarding not being able to call back the client if the connection is closed. I need to use percall instances for scalibility. I was advised in this thread that I shouldnt leave connections open as it would 'significantly limit scalibity' - WCF duplex callbacks, how do I send a message to all clients?

However I had a look through the book Programming WCF Services and the author seems to state that this is not an issue because 'In between calls, the client holds a reference on a proxy that doesn't have an actual object at the end of the wire. This means that you can dispose of the expensive resources the service instance occupies long before the client closes the proxy'

1. So which is correct, is it fine to keep proxies open on clients?
2. But even if that is fine it leads to another issue. If the service instances are destroyed between call, how can they do duplex callbacks to update the clients? Regarding percall instances, the author of Programming WCF Services says 'Because the object will be discarded once the method returns, you should not spin off background threads or dispatch asynchronous calls back into the instance'
3. Would I be better off having clients poll the service for updates? I would have imagined that this is much more inefficient than duplex callbacks, clients could end up polling the service 50+ times as often as using a duplex callback. But maybe there is no other way? Would this be scalable? I envisage several hundred concurrent users.

Answer 1

Since I am guilty of telling you that server callbacks won't scale, I should probably explain a bit more. Let me start by addressing your questions:

1. Without owning the book in question, I can only assume that the author is either referring to http-based transports or request-response only, with no callbacks. Callbacks require one of two things- either the server needs to maintain an open TCP connection to the client (meaning that there are resources in use on the server for each client), or the server needs to be able to open a connection to a listening port on the client. Since you are using netTcpBinding, your situation would be the former. wsDualHttpBinding is an example of the latter, but that introduces a lot of routing and firewall issues that make it unworkable over the internet (I am assuming that the public internet is your target environment here- if not, let us know).

2. You have intuitively figured out why server resources are required for callbacks. Again, wsDualHttpBinding is a bit different, because in that case the server is actually calling back to the client over a new connection in order to send the async reply. This basically requires ports to be opened on the client's side and punched through any firewalls, something that you can't expect of the average internet user. Lots more on that here: WSDualHttpBinding for duplex callbacks

3. You can architect this a few different ways, but it's understandable if you don't want the overhead (and potential for delay) of the clients constantly hammering the server for updates. Again, at several hundred concurrent users, you are likely still within the range that one good server could handle using callbacks, but I assume you'd like to have a system that can scale beyond that if needed (or at peak times). What I'd do is this:

   1. Use callback proxies (I know, I told you not to)... Clients connecting create new proxies, which are stored in a thread-safe collection and occasionally checked for live-ness (and purged if found to be dead).

   2. Instead of having the server post messages directly from one client to another, have the server post the messages to some Message Queue Middleware . There are tons of these out there- MSMQ is popular with Windows, ActiveMQ and RabbitMQ are FOSS (Free Open Source Software), and Tibco EMS is popular in big enterprises (but can be very expensive). What you probably want to use is a topic, not a queue (more on queues vs topics here ).

   3. Have a thread (or several threads) on the server dedicated to reading messages off of the topic, and if that message is addressed to a live session on that server , deliver that message to the proxy on the server.

Here's a rough sketch of the architecture:

This architecture should allow you to automatically scale out by simply adding more servers, and load balancing new connections among them. The message queueing infrastructure would be the only limiting factor, and all of the ones I mentioned would scale beyond any likely use case you'd ever see. Because you'd be using topics and not queues, every message would be broadcast to each server- you might need to figure out a better way of distributing the messages, like using hash-based partitioning.