chat.md
· 3.0 KiB · Markdown
原始檔案
Great question — this design pattern (WebSocket for server → client, HTTP POST for client → server) is actually very common in real-time applications like Discord, Slack, etc., and it boils down to **security, reliability, and simplicity on the server side**.
Here’s a breakdown of **why Discord uses HTTP POST for sending messages, but WebSocket for receiving them**:
---
### 🔁 WebSocket (Server → Client): Real-time Push
Discord uses WebSockets to **push events to clients** (e.g., new messages, typing notifications, presence updates) because:
* **Low latency, bidirectional, persistent connection**
* **Efficient** for pushing lots of updates to thousands or millions of clients
* **Maintains client session state**, so the server knows what the client is subscribed to
---
### 📤 HTTP POST (Client → Server): Sending Messages
Users **send messages via HTTP POST** instead of WebSocket because:
#### 1. **Authentication and Rate Limiting Are Easier**
* HTTP allows for fine-grained **OAuth token verification**, **permissions checks**, and **IP-based rate limiting**.
* Discord has **strict global and per-user rate limits** (e.g., 5 messages every 5 seconds in a channel) — these are easier to enforce with stateless HTTP requests.
#### 2. **Statelessness is a Feature**
* HTTP requests are **independent**, which is great for robustness. If your WebSocket connection is dropped, you can still send messages.
* Easier to **retry failed sends** (e.g., if network drops) with a simple POST request.
#### 3. **Infrastructure Simplicity**
* HTTP is backed by **mature, scalable, battle-tested infrastructure** like CDNs, load balancers, reverse proxies, and API gateways.
* WebSocket is more complex to scale on the server because it requires **stateful long-lived connections**.
#### 4. **Auditing and Logging**
* HTTP APIs are easier to **log, debug, and audit**.
* REST endpoints can include payloads like message content, channel ID, nonce, attachments, etc., in a consistent, structured way.
#### 5. **Compatibility**
* HTTP is **universally supported**, even on limited clients or proxies that may block WebSockets or kill idle connections.
---
### 🧠 Why Not Just Use WebSockets for Everything?
Technically, Discord **could** accept client messages over the WebSocket (the protocol allows for it), but:
* The server would need to **track more client state**.
* Malformed data would be harder to handle (less structured than an HTTP request).
* Rate limits and abuse prevention would be harder.
* Retry and reliability logic would have to be handled differently.
By splitting the flow:
* **WebSocket = real-time notifications from server**
* **HTTP POST = user-generated actions to server**
…it creates a **cleaner, more robust architecture**.
---
### TL;DR
Discord uses:
* **WebSockets for pushing data to clients** → real-time, efficient, and persistent.
* **HTTP POST for sending messages to the server** → stateless, secure, easier to rate limit, audit, and scale.
It’s a deliberate design tradeoff for performance and maintainability.
Great question — this design pattern (WebSocket for server → client, HTTP POST for client → server) is actually very common in real-time applications like Discord, Slack, etc., and it boils down to security, reliability, and simplicity on the server side.
Here’s a breakdown of why Discord uses HTTP POST for sending messages, but WebSocket for receiving them:
🔁 WebSocket (Server → Client): Real-time Push
Discord uses WebSockets to push events to clients (e.g., new messages, typing notifications, presence updates) because:
- Low latency, bidirectional, persistent connection
- Efficient for pushing lots of updates to thousands or millions of clients
- Maintains client session state, so the server knows what the client is subscribed to
📤 HTTP POST (Client → Server): Sending Messages
Users send messages via HTTP POST instead of WebSocket because:
1. Authentication and Rate Limiting Are Easier
- HTTP allows for fine-grained OAuth token verification, permissions checks, and IP-based rate limiting.
- Discord has strict global and per-user rate limits (e.g., 5 messages every 5 seconds in a channel) — these are easier to enforce with stateless HTTP requests.
2. Statelessness is a Feature
- HTTP requests are independent, which is great for robustness. If your WebSocket connection is dropped, you can still send messages.
- Easier to retry failed sends (e.g., if network drops) with a simple POST request.
3. Infrastructure Simplicity
- HTTP is backed by mature, scalable, battle-tested infrastructure like CDNs, load balancers, reverse proxies, and API gateways.
- WebSocket is more complex to scale on the server because it requires stateful long-lived connections.
4. Auditing and Logging
- HTTP APIs are easier to log, debug, and audit.
- REST endpoints can include payloads like message content, channel ID, nonce, attachments, etc., in a consistent, structured way.
5. Compatibility
- HTTP is universally supported, even on limited clients or proxies that may block WebSockets or kill idle connections.
🧠 Why Not Just Use WebSockets for Everything?
Technically, Discord could accept client messages over the WebSocket (the protocol allows for it), but:
- The server would need to track more client state.
- Malformed data would be harder to handle (less structured than an HTTP request).
- Rate limits and abuse prevention would be harder.
- Retry and reliability logic would have to be handled differently.
By splitting the flow:
- WebSocket = real-time notifications from server
- HTTP POST = user-generated actions to server
…it creates a cleaner, more robust architecture.
TL;DR
Discord uses:
- WebSockets for pushing data to clients → real-time, efficient, and persistent.
- HTTP POST for sending messages to the server → stateless, secure, easier to rate limit, audit, and scale.
It’s a deliberate design tradeoff for performance and maintainability.