WebSockets
- shweta1151
- Jun 3
- 6 min read
Architectural Style & Patterns: WebSockets enable a persistent, full-duplex communication channel over a single TCP connection. Unlike HTTP’s request-response model, once a WebSocket connection is established (via an HTTP handshake upgrading to the WebSocket protocol), both client and server can send messages to each other independently at any time. This makes WebSockets inherently suitable for event-driven and real-time architectures, as well as pub-sub style communication. In a client-server context, WebSockets break the traditional client-initiated communication pattern – the server can push data to the client asynchronously. WebSockets are widely used in web applications (browsers support them natively via JavaScript WebSocket API) and are a cornerstone for real-time features in web, mobile, and even desktop apps. They can also be used in microservice environments for inter-service communication where streaming or low-latency pushing is needed, though more often they appear at the edge (client-to-server) rather than between backend services. About 25% of developers reported using WebSockets in 2023, reflecting the significant niche for real-time apps (and likely growing as applications demand more interactivity). In terms of underlying architecture, a WebSocket connection is typically long-lived, so system design must handle many open connections (often requiring an event-loop or async I/O model on the server to manage thousands or millions of sockets). WebSockets do not by themselves enforce an architecture (you can build whatever message schema on top), but they pair naturally with publish-subscribe (server broadcasting events to many clients) and stream processing scenarios. They are not request-response (though one can simulate request-response over them), so they’re complementary to REST/GraphQL rather than a direct replacement in most cases.
Strengths and Use Cases: The primary reason to choose WebSockets is to achieve real-time, bidirectional communication. Key strengths include:
Real-Time Bidirectional Communication: WebSockets provide low-latency updates because after the initial handshake, messages can flow in both directions without the overhead of repeated HTTP request. This is ideal for chat applications, live collaboration tools (like Google Docs style concurrent editing), multiplayer online games, or any use case where the server needs to proactively send frequent updates (e.g., live sports scores, trading tickers). The latency is only limited by network RTT; there’s no need to wait for clients to poll.
Reduced Overhead per Message: Because the connection stays open, each message is a small, minimal frame without the usual HTTP headers. For scenarios with frequent messages, WebSockets drastically reduce protocol overhead compared to issuing an HTTP request for each update. This leads to better use of bandwidth and server resources in high-frequency communication (e.g., sending a position update 20 times per second in a game).
Server Push and Event Broadcasting: WebSockets excel at server-push. For example, a server can push an event to many connected clients instantly (think of a chat server broadcasting a message to all participants in a channel). This is far more efficient and timely than alternatives like long polling. Many modern collaborative or social features (notifications, live feeds) rely on WebSocket connections to push events as they happen.
Efficiency vs. Polling/Long Polling: Prior to WebSockets, achieving “real-time” updates often meant frequent polling (which is wasteful and latent) or long polling (holding HTTP connections open artificially). WebSockets solve this elegantly. They are also generally more efficient than Server-Sent Events (SSE) when you need true two-way communication; SSE is one-way. With WebSockets, a single connection can replace numerous periodic HTTP requests, reducing load. For instance, instead of 1000 clients hitting an API every second to check for updates, those 1000 clients can keep one socket each and the server pushes updates only when available – huge savings in overhead.
Protocol Agnostic Payload: WebSocket is a transport layer – you can send text or binary data. This flexibility means you can design custom lightweight message formats (JSON, MsgPack, Protocol Buffers, etc.) suitable for your application. It’s not limited to request-response semantics or any specific schema. This makes it adaptable for various needs, from simple chat protocols to streaming binary data (like live audio/video or telemetry).
Use in Microservices for Streaming: Although less common than in client-facing scenarios, WebSockets can be used between microservices for continuous streams of data (for example, streaming results from one service to another for processing). They might also be used in edge computing where devices maintain socket connections to a central server (though MQTT is more common for IoT – see below). Some service mesh or cloud systems allow services to communicate via WebSocket if needed, which could be useful for specific streaming pipelines.
Real-world example: Slack, the popular team messaging app, uses WebSockets to maintain a persistent connection for each client, enabling instant delivery of messages and typing notifications. At peak, Slack has millions of concurrently connected WebSocket clients keeping teams in sync in real time.
Weaknesses and Limitations: While WebSockets are powerful for specific cases, they introduce challenges and are not always the right choice:
Connection Management and Scaling: Keeping potentially thousands or millions of simultaneous connections open is non-trivial. It demands an asynchronous, event-driven server architecture. Scaling WebSocket servers (and load balancing them) can be more complex than stateless HTTP request servers, because you might need sticky sessions or connection routing to ensure messages from server reach the correct client. Infrastructure like clusters and proxies must handle a large number of long-lived connections. This stateful nature (each connection ties up resources) can make horizontal scaling harder. In contrast, stateless HTTP can be load balanced arbitrarily. Thus, for applications with very large user bases, you must design carefully to avoid running out of file descriptors, memory, or encountering load balancer limits on concurrent sockets.
Lack of Built-in Reliability and Protocol Features: WebSockets by itself is a relatively thin layer on top of TCP. It doesn’t have notions of message persistence, acknowledgments (beyond TCP’s guarantees), or higher-level messaging patterns. If a WebSocket client disconnects, any messages in transit are lost. Unlike, say, AMQP or MQTT, there’s no built-in message queue or QoS. Developers have to implement any needed reliability (retries, save last messages, etc.) at the application level. Similarly, security (beyond using TLS) or authentication is not part of the protocol – one typically does a handshake with tokens or uses subprotocols. It’s “bare bones” compared to SOAP or AMQP.
Browser and Network Constraints: WebSockets are broadly supported, but some environments (corporate proxies, older network middleboxes) might block or not gracefully handle WebSocket traffic, since it’s a protocol upgrade on HTTP. There have been issues in the past with WebSockets being blocked by strict firewall policies. Also, unlike HTTP which can leverage CDNs and caching, WebSocket traffic is always dynamic and goes straight to the origin – no middle caching. This could be a disadvantage for scenarios where caching could reduce load.
Not a Cure-All for Every Communication Need: If your use case doesn’t require frequent real-time updates or interactive push, using WebSockets can complicate a system without much benefit. For example, an API that mostly serves on-demand requests (like fetching user profiles or posting transactions) gains nothing from being on WebSockets – a simple HTTP call is easier and more robust. WebSockets shine for continuous interaction, but for occasional data fetches, they are unnecessary.
Fallbacks and Polyfills: In environments where WebSockets aren’t available (older browsers or certain IoT devices), you might need fallback mechanisms (like SSE or long polling). Some frameworks (e.g., Socket.IO) handle this by providing a unified API that falls back to HTTP long-polling if needed. However, that adds layers of complexity. Direct WebSocket usage means you have to either drop support for those edge cases or implement alternate paths.
Server Resource Usage: Each open WebSocket consumes some memory and a file/socket descriptor on the server. There’s a limit to how many connections a single machine can handle (though it can be quite high with the right event loop and OS tuning – millions have been achieved in practice). High traffic on each connection can also hog CPU if messages are frequent. So hardware must be sized for the worst-case number of concurrent connections and message throughput. It’s a very different scaling profile than stateless request per connection flows.
In practice, use WebSockets when real-time bidirectional communication is essential. Classic examples: chat systems, live dashboards (e.g., monitoring data that updates second-by-second), collaborative editing apps, instant notifications, online gaming, and financial tickers. If the application is such that users expect to see updates immediately without hitting refresh, WebSockets are often the way to go. But if your application can tolerate pulling data every few seconds or on-demand, and especially if it’s primarily one-way from client to server, simpler approaches (like REST or SSE) might suffice and will be easier to maintain. WebSockets and HTTP-based APIs often coexist: for instance, a trading app might use REST for trade submissions and WebSockets to push real-time market data to clients. This hybrid approach leverages each protocol where it’s strongest.
Main Blog: