We Keep Coding

Monitor database with GWT

Maybe I'm overthinking this but I'd like some advice. Customers can place an order inside my GWT application and on a secondary computer I want to monitor those submittals inside th eGWT application and flash an alarm every time an order is submitted, provided the user has OK'd this. I cant figure out the best way to do this. Orders are submitted to a mysql database if that makes any difference. Does anyone have a suggestion on what to do or try?

There are two options: 1) polling or 2) pushing which would allow your server (in the servlet handling the GWT request) to notify you (after the order is successfully placed).
In 1) polling, the client (meaning the browser you are using to monitor the app) will periodically call the server to see if there is data waiting. It may be more resource intensive as many calls are made for infrequent data. It may also be slower due to the delay between calls. If only your monitoring client is calling though it wouldn't be so resource intensive.
In 2) pushing, the client will make a request and the request will be held open until there is data. It is less resource intensive and can be faster. Once data is returned, the client sends another request (this is long polling). Alternatively, streaming is an option where the server doesn't sent a complete request and just keeps sending data. This streaming option requires a specific client-/browser-specific implementation though. If it's just you monitoring though, you should know the client and could set it up specifically for that.
See the demo project in GWT Event Service
Here is the documentation (user manual) for it.
Also see GWT Server Push FAQ
There are other ways of doing it other than GWT Event Service of course. Just google "GWT server push" and you'll find comet, DWR, etc., and if you are using Google's App Engine the Channel API

role of multithreading in web application

I am using java(Servlets, JSPs) since 2 years for web application development. In those 2 years I never required to use multithreading(explicitly - as I know that servlet containers uses threading to serve same servlet to different requests) in any project.
But whenever I attend an interview for Web Developer position(java), then there are several questions related to threads in java. I know the basics of java threading so answering the questions is not a problem. But sometimes I get confused whether I am missing something while developing web application by not using mutithreading?
So my question is that what is the role of multithreading in Web Application? Any example where multithreading can be used in web application will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

Multi-threading can be used in Web Apps mainly when you are interested in asynchronous calls.
Consider for example you have a Web application that activates a user's state on a GSM network (e.g activate 4G plan) and sends a confirmatory SMS or email message at the end.
Knowing that the Web call would take several minutes - especially if the GSM network is stressed - it does not make sense to call it directly from the Web thread.
So basically, when a user clicks "Activate", the Server returns something like "Thanks for activating the 4G plan. Your plan will be activated in a few minutes and you will receive a confirmation SMS/email".
In that case, you server has to spawn a new thread, ideally using a thread pool, in an asynchronous manner, and immediately return a response to the user.
Workflow:
1- User clicks "Activate" button
2- Servlet receives request and activates a new "Activate 4G Plan" task in a thread pool.
3- Servlet immediately returns an HTML response to the user without waiting for the task to be finalized.
4- End of Http transaction
.
.
.
Asynchronously, the 4G plan gets activated later and the user gets notified through SMS or email, etc...

Speaking about a real-world example, there are several reasons to use multi-threading, and I wouldn't hire a web-developer who doesn't know about it. But in the end, the reasons to use multi-threading are the same for standard- and web-development: you either want something that take a while (aka blocking) done in the background to give the user some response in between, or you have a task that can be speed up by having it run on several cores. When multi-threading is actually useful is however a different question.
Situation 1: A web server that does require some processing and has low hits/second
Here multi-threading (if applicable to the algorithm) is a good thing, as idle cores are utilized and threading can result in a faster response to the user.
Situation 2: A web server that does require some processing and has high hits/second
Here multi-threading is possible, but as cores are usually busy with other requests, there are no resources left to use it properly. Actually spreading out the task to several threads can even have a negative impact on the response time, as the task is now fragmented and all parts need to complete, but the order of execution with threads is undefined. So one client could immediately receive a response, while others might wait into time-out till their last fragment eventually gets processed.
Situation 3: A web server has to do some processing that takes a very long time
Here multi-threading is required, there is no way around it. A client cannot wait minutes or probably hours till it receives the response. In this case a callback system is usually implemented, so basically each task has an "API" that can be queried for the current state. Most online-shops are an example for this: you order something and later you can query your order status.
The alternative to threading is process-forking, as Apache does in its standard configuration. The benefit is that load is spread across cores (mostly applicable to situation 2), and the web-code itself doesn't have to do anything to use all those cores, as the OS handles that automatically. However if you have imbalanced load, some cores can be idle and resources are not used in an optimal way. A threading situation is almost always the better solution, if it is done right. But the Apache/Tomcat standard configuration uses a very outdated threading model, by spawning one thread for each request. Effectively given a certain amount of hits/second, the CPU is more busy with threading than with actually processing those requests.

Well this is a nice question and I think most of the developers who work in web application development don't use multithreading explicitly.
The reason is quite obvious since you are using a application server to deploy your application, the application server internally manages a thread pool for incoming requests.
Then why use multithreading explicitly? What is need a web application developer expose himself to multithreading?
When you work on a large scale application where you have to server many request concurrently it is difficult to serve every kind of request synchronously because particular kind of request could have been doing a lot processing which could bring down the performance your application.
Lets take an example where a web application after serving particular kind of request has to notify users through email and SMS. Doing it synchronously with the request thread could bring down the performance of your web application. So here comes the role of mutlithreading.
In such cases it is advisable to develop a stand alone multithreaded application over the network which is responsible for sending email and SMS only.

Multi-treading in web application can be used when you are interested in parallel action, e.g., fetching data from multiple addresses.
As I understand, multi-threading is used in different situation from thread-pool, which can be used to handle requests from multiple clients.

Write data fast to a remote database

I have an app which will generate 5 - 10 new database records in one host each second.
The records don't need any checks. They just have to be recorded in a remote database.
I'm using Java for the client app.
The database is behind a server.
The sending data can't make the app wait. So probably sending each single record to the remote server, at least synchronously, it's not good.
Sending data must not fail. My app doesn't need an answer from the server, but it has to be 100% secure that it arrives at the server correctly (which should be guaranteed using for example http url connection (TCP) ...?).
I thought about few approaches for this:
Run the send data code in separate thread.
Store the data only in memory and send to database after certain count.
Store the data in a local database and send / pulled by the server by request.
All of this makes sense, but I'm a noob on this, and maybe there's some standard approach which I'm missing and makes things easier. Not sure about way to go.

Your requirements aren't very clear. My best answer is to go through your question, and try to point you in the right direction on a point-by-point basis.
"The records don't need any checks," and "My app doesn't need an answer, but it has to be 100% secure that it arrives at the server correctly."
How exactly are you planning on the client knowing that the data was received without sending a response? You should always plan to write exception handling into your app, and deal with a situation where the client's connection, or the data it sends, is dropped for some reason. These two statements you've made seem to be in conflict with one another; you don't need a response, but you need to know that the data arrives? Is your app going to use a crystal ball to devine confirmation of the data being received (if so, please send me such a crystal ball - I'd like to use it to short the stock market).
"Run the send data code in a separate thread," and "store the data in memory and send later," and "store the data locally and have it pulled by the server", and "sending data can't make my app wait".
Ok, so it sounds like you want non-blocking I/O. But the reality is, even with non-blocking I/O it still takes some amount of time to actually send the data. My question is, why are you asking for non-blocking and/or fast I/O? If data transfers were simply extremely fast, would it really matter if it wasn't also non-blocking? This is a design decision on your part, but it's not clear from your question why you need this, so I'm just throwing it out there.
As far as putting the data in memory and sending it later, that's not really non-blocking, or multi-tasking; that's just putting off the work until some future time. I consider that software procrastination. This method doesn't reduce the amount of time or work your app needs to do in order to process that data, it just puts it off to some future date. This doesn't gain you anything unless there's some benefit to "batching" data sending into large chunks.
The in-memory idea also sounds like a temporary buffer. Many of the I/O stream implementations are going to have a buffer built in, as well as the buffer on your network card, as well as the buffer on your router, etc., etc. Adding another buffer in your code doesn't seem to make any sense on the surface, unless you can justify why you think this will help. That is, what actual, experienced problem are you trying to solve by introducing a buffer? Also, depending on how you're sending this data (i.e. which network I/O classes you choose) you might get non-blocking I/O included as part of the class implementation.
Next, as for sending the data on a separate thread, that's fine if you need non-blocking I/O, but (1) you need to justify why that's a good idea in terms of the design of your software before you go down that route, because it adds complication to your app, so unless it solves a specific, real problem (i.e. you have a UI in your app that shouldn't get frozen/unresponsive due to pending I/O operations), then it's just added complication and you won't get any added performance out of it. (2) There's a common temptation to use threads to, again, basically procrastinate work. Putting the work off onto another thread doesn't reduce the total amount of work needing to be done, or the total amount of I/O your app will consume in order to accomplish its function - it just puts it off on another thread. There are times when this is highly beneficial, and maybe it's the right decision for your app, but from your description I see a lot of requested features, but not the justification (or explanation of the problem you're trying to solve) that backup these feature/design choices, which is what should ultimately drive the direction you choose to go.
Finally, as far as having the server "pull" it instead of it being pushed to the server, well, all you're doing here is flipping the roles, and making the server act as a client, and the client the server. Realize that "client" and "server" are relative terms, and the server is the thing that's providing the service. Simply flipping the roles around doesn't really change anything - it just flips the client/server roles from one part of the software to the other. The labels themselves are just that - labels - a convenient way to know which piece is providing the service, and which piece is consuming the service (the client).
"I have an app which will generate 5 - 10 new database records in one host each second."
This shouldn't be a problem. Any decent DB server will treat this sort of work as extremely low load. The bigger concern in terms of speed/responsiveness from the server will be things like network latency (assuming you're transferring this data over a network) and other factors regarding your I/O choices that will affect whether or not you can write 5-10 records per second - that is, your overall throughput.

The canonical, if unfortunately enterprisey, answer to this is to use a durable message queue. Your app would send messages to the queue, and a backend app would receiver and store them in a database. Once the queue has accepted a message, it guarantees that it will be made available to the receiver, even if the sender, receiver, or the queue broker itself crash.
On my machine, using HornetQ, it takes ~1 ms to construct and send a short text message to a durable queue. That's quick enough that you can do it as part of handling a web request without adding any noticeable additional delay. Any good message queue will support your 10 messages per second throughput. HornetQ has been benchmarked as handling 8.2 million messages per second.
I should add that message queues are not that hard to set up and use. I downloaded HornetQ, and had it up and running in a few minutes. The code needed to create a queue (using the native HornetQ API) and send and receive messages (using the JMS API) is less than a hundred lines.

If you queue the data and send it in a thread, it should be fine if your rate is 5-10 per second and there's only one client. If you have multiple clients, to the point where your database inserts begin to get slow, you could have a problem; given your requirement of "sending data must not fail." Which is a much more difficult requirement, especially in the face of machine or network failure.
Consider the following scenario. You have more clients than your database can handle efficiently, and one of your users is a fast typist. Inserts begin to back up in-memory in their app. They finish their work and shut it down before the last ones are actually uploaded to the database. Or, the machine crashes before the data is sent - or while its sending; or worse yet, the database crashes while its sending, and due to network issues the client can't really tell that its transaction has not completed.
The easy way avoid these problems (most of them anyway), is to make the user wait until the data is committed somewhere before allowing them to continue. If you can make the database inserts fast enough then you can stick with a simpler scheme. If not, then you have to be more creative.
For example, you could locally write the data to disk when the user hits submit, and then upload it from another thread. This scenario needs to be smart enough to mark something that is persisted as sent (deleting it would work); and have the ability to re-scan at startup and look for unsent work to send. It also needs the ability to keep trying in the case of network or centralized server failure.
There also needs to be a way for the server side to detect duplicates. Because the client machine could send the data and crash before it can mark it as sent; and then upon restart it would send it again. The same situation could occur if there is a bad network connection. The client could send it and never receive confirmation from the server; time out and then end up retrying it.

If you don't want the client app to block, then yes, you need to send the data from a different thread.
Once you've done that, then the only thing that matters is whether you're able to send records to the database at least as fast as you're generating them. I'd start off by getting it working sending them one-by-one, then if that isn't sufficient, put them into an in-memory queue and update in batches. It's hard to say more, since you don't give us any idea what is determining the rate at which records are generated.
You don't say how you're writing to the database... JDBC? ORM like Hibernate? But the principles are the same.

server push or client push is better?

I am developing a chat website using jsp/servlet.I will be hosting my website on gooogle appengine .Now i have some doubts regarding whether to use server push or client pull technology
1)If i use server push and if i dont close the response of servlet will it cause the server to go slow?How many simultanious connection can a tyicall tomcat server can handle if i keep the socket open for the entire chat session between 2 clinets??
2)Will server push or clinet push be better??

If you are using a servlet (prior to 3.0), then I guess you'll have to go with pull because of the programming model of servlet. However, there ARE advantages in using a push model. Primarily, wasted load on server and the limitation in latency. That's why there are technologies such as comet. Servlet 3.0 also supports push model. These are commonly used in ajax based apps.
In fact I believe a push model is more suited for a chatting app. because of the fast response time (=better user experience) it can provide.
If you use a nio based implementation for push-model, you can support thousands or even more than 10k concurrent connections (obviously, your millage varies).
If you use a conventional IO based implementation, it will be likely in the range of hundreds of concurrent connections (don't take this estimation too seriously though. I'm just giving these numbers to give a very, very rough feeling).
As for tomcat, last time I checked, people were saying that it won't have a good push-model support until version 7.0. But I'm not following the current status so I'm not sure (Sorry, perhaps somebody else can help you on this). If that is the case, you might want to check out comet support of jetty.
grizzly and netty are also good NIO based network frameworks, but if you want to use JSP, and find that tomcat is not sufficient, I guess jetty would be the best bet.
edit: (some additional info)
In this "push models", it's not like the server opens a connection to the client. The connection will be kept alive, and the server will push messages as it sees fit.
Also, it's not like there are only "push" and "pull" models. You can have a hybrid, like long polling.

I don't know how are you thinking of achieving server push here. As far as I can see, server needs a request to respond over HTTP. So, when there is a request, server will respond to that.

If i use server push and if i dont close the response of servlet will it cause the server to go slow?
App Engine will not let you do that. You have to finish your response within thirty seconds, or it will be killed. The thirty seconds is also an edge case, most calculations they do (for quota and such) are based on a 75 millisecond response time.
How many simultanious connection can a tyicall tomcat server
Tomcat? I thought you are planning to use App Engine?

Pull. Always pull.
I know it's a manufacturing-oriented book but the advice from Lean Thinking (Womack & Jones) is invaluable in any context (roughly, from memory):
Start by defining value,
line up the activities that create value in the value-stream,
create flow across the value-stream,
let customers pull value from the value-stream,
compete against perfection rather than other organizations
If I misquoted them, I apologize. Anyway, all of those principles can easily be applied in the development of any software product just as they could in the production of any physical product but the one that matters for you is pull.
Letting consumers of a service pull rather than pushing to them not only makes your programming model easier, it aligns activity with demand. You can still use queuing to load-level over time, if you have to, just the way you could with push but, this way, you have complete visibility into what, exactly happens in any given transaction.
I don't quite get your first question but the answer is still pull.

The answer to your query depends on what underlying protocol you wish to use.
Since you have mentioned JSP/servlets, your app will be implemented over the HTTP protocol.
HTTP is a protocol over TCP. TCP is connection oriented and remains alive, until the connection is ended. However, HTTP connections are persistent, only for the duration of a single request-response cycle. The TCP connection is broken after every request-response cycle. So that should answer your doubt with regards to how many socket connections a typical TOMCAT server will be able to handle. The connections will not be persistent, at all. They will only last the duration of a HTTP request-response cycle.
Given this basic idea, I would suggest , you use a client pull strategy, to implement your app.
Even with server push, over HTTP, even though the name says "server push", it is always the web client that polls the server at regular intervals, which just gives an illusion of "server-push". HTTP specification mandates that the client makes a request to which the server responds.
I have considerable experience in developing chat applications (both mobile and web).
Let me know , if you need any assistance. I will be more that willing to help.

Availability Issue

Architecture:
A bunch of clients send out messages to a server which is behind a VIP. Obviously this server poses an availability risk.
The client monitors a resource and the server is responsible to take action based on the what status the majority of the clients report to it and hence the need for only 1 server/leader.
I am thinking of adding another server as a backup on the VIP, which gets turned on only when the first server fails. However when the backup comes up it would have no information to process and would lose time waiting for clients to report and waiting for the required thresholds etc.
Problem:
What is the best and easiest way to have two servers share client state information with only one receiving client traffic?
Solution1:
I thought of have having the server forward client state information to backup server and in the event of a failure when the backup server comes up, it can take it from there.
Is there any other way to do this? I thought of having a common/shared place to store state information where both servers can read client state information from. But this doesn't work well as the shared space is a single point of failure too.

One option is to use a write-ahead log. Essentially, any modification you make to your state gets sent over to the backup server, which replays the change on its own copy of the state. As long as it can keep up with the streaming log, the backup is always up-to-date.
This is the approach generally used by most databases; if you use one as your backend, you may be able to get support for this with little work.
Be careful to have a plan to recover from communication failure - either save the log to disk and resend the missing portion, or send a snapshot of the state, plus all log entries since the snapshot on reconnect.

There are various distributed caching products which do the kind of thing you're talking about here. Some are supplied with App Servers, such as WebSphere's dynacache and Object Grid. In fact ObjectGrid can be used in JSE, no need for an App Server.
Those distributed cache products use various push and pull models with pub-sub messaging to achieve consistency across the instances. Working for IBM I'm a fan of ObjectGrid, but more impartant, I'm fan of not reinventing wheels. My take is that this stuff can get quite complex and hence finding something off-the shelf might save a load of work - there are links to various Open Source solutions here.

The is very much dependent on how available your solution needs to be (how many 9's). There is a spectrum of solution.
A lightweight one could be crafted around Memcache: extremely fast distributed state facility. As example, it is used extensively on Google AppEngine.