Stateless & asynchronous web-server with PHP (and Symfony) - php

Question

TL;DR: I'm not sure this topic has its place on StackOverflow, but basically it's just a topic of debate and thinking about making PHP apps like we would do with NodeJS for example (stateless request flow, asynchronous calls, etc.)
The situation
We know NodeJS can be used as both a web-server and web-app.
But for PHP, the internal web-server is not recommended for production (so says the documentation).
But, as Symfony full-stack is based on the Kernel which handles Request objects, it means we should be able to send lots of requests to the same kernel, only if we could "bootstrap" the php web-server (not the app) by creating a kernel before listening to HTTP requests. And our router would only create a Request object and make the kernel handle it.
But for this, a Symfony app has to be stateless, for example we need Doctrine to effectively clear its unit of work after a request, or maybe we would need to sort of isolate some components based on a request (By identifying a request with its unique PHP class reference id? Or by using other php processes?), and obviously, we would need more asynchronous things in PHP or in the way we use the internal web-server.
The main questions I sometimes ask myself, and now ask to the community
To clarify this, I have some questions about PHP:
Why exactly is the internal PHP webserver not recommended for production?
I mean, if we can configure how the server is run and its "router" file, we should be able to use it like any PHP server, yes or no?
How does it behaves internally? Is memory shared between two requests?
By using the router, it seems obvious to me that variables are not shared, else we could make nodejs-like apps, but it seems PHP is not capable of doing something like this.
Is it really possible to make a full-stateless application with Symfony?
e.g. I send two different requests to the same kernel object, in this case, is there any possibility that the two requests create a conflict in Symfony core components?
Actually, the idea of "Create a kernel -> start server -> on request, make the kernel handle it" behavior would be awesome, because it would be something quite similar to NodeJS, but actually, the PHP paradigm is not compatible with this because we would need each request to be handled asynchronously. But if a kernel and its container is stateless, then, there should be a way to do something like that, shouldn't it?
Some thoughts
I've heard about React PHP, Ratchet PHP for Websocket integration, Icicle, PHP-PM but never experienced them, it seems a bit too complex to me for now (I may lack some concepts about asynchronicity in apps, that's why my brain won't understand until I have some more answers :D ).
Is there any way that these libraries could be used as "wrappers" for our kernel request handling?
I mean, let's create this reactphp/icicle/whatever environment setup, create our kernel like we would do in any Symfony app, and run the app as web-server, and when a request is retrieved, we send it asynchrously to our kernel, and as long as the kernel has not sent the response, the client waits for it, even if the response is also sent asynchrously (from nested callbacks, etc., like in NodeJS).
This would make any existing Symfony app compatible with this paradigm, as long as the app is stateless, obviously. (if the app config changes based on a request, there's a paradigm issue in the app itself...)
Is it even a possible reality with PHP libraries rather than using PHP internal web-server in another way?
Why ask these questions?
Actually, it would be kind of a revolution if PHP could implement real asynchronous stuff internally, like Javascript has, but this would also has a big impact on performances in PHP, because of persistent data in our web-server, less bootstraping (require autoloader, instantiate kernel, get heavy things from cached files, resolve routing, etc.).
In my thoughts, only the $kernel->handleRaw($request); would consume CPU, the whole rest (container, parameters, services, etc.) would be already in the memory, or, for the case of services, "awaiting to be instantiated". Then, performance boost, I think.
And it may troll a bit the people who still think PHP is a very bad and slow language to use :D
For readers and responders ;)
If a core PHP contributor reads me, is there any way that internally PHP could be more asynchronous even with a specific new internal API based on functions or classes?
I'm not a pro of all of these concepts, and I hope really good experts are going to read this and answer me!
It could be a great advance in the PHP world if all of this was possible in any way.

Answer 1

Why exactly is the internal PHP webserver not recommended for
production? I mean, if we can configure how the server is run and its
"router" file, we should be able to use it like any PHP server, yes or
no?
Because it's not written to behave well under load, and there are no configuration options that let you handle HTTP request processing before it reaches PHP.
Basically, it lacks features if you compare it to nginx. It would be equal to comparing a skateboard to a Lamborghini.
It can get you from A to B but.. you get the gist.
How does it behaves internally? Is memory shared between two requests?
By using the router, it seems obvious to me that variables are not
shared, else we could make nodejs-like apps, but it seems PHP is not
capable of doing something like this.
Documentation states it's singlethreaded, so it appears that it would behave the same as if you wrote while(true) { // all your processing here }.
It's a playtoy designed to quickly check a few things if you can't be bothered to set up a proper web server before trying out your code.
Is it really possible to make a full-stateless application with
Symfony? e.g. I send two different requests to the same kernel object,
in this case, is there any possibility that the two requests create a
conflict in Symfony core components?
Why would it go to the same kernel object? Why not design your app in such a way that it's not relevant which object or even processing server gets the request? Why not design for redundancy and high availability from the get go? HTTP = stateless by default. Your task = make it irrelevant what processes the request. It's not difficult to do so, if you avoid coupling with the actual processing server (example: don't store sessions to local filesystem etc.)
Actually, the idea of "Create a kernel -> start server -> on request,
make the kernel handle it" behavior would be awesome, because it would
be something quite similar to NodeJS, but actually, the PHP paradigm
is not compatible with this because we would need each request to be
handled asynchronously. But if a kernel and its container is
stateless, then, there should be a way to do something like that,
shouldn't it?
Actually, nginx + php-fpm behave almost identical to node.js.
nginx uses a reactor to handle all connections on the same thread. Node.js does the exact same thing. What you do is create a closure / callback that is fed into Node's libraries and I/O is handled in a threaded environment. Multithreading is abstracted from you (related to I/O, not CPU). That's why you can experience that Node.js blocks when it's asked to do a CPU intensive task.
nginx implements the exact same concept, except this callback isn't a closure written in javascript. It's a callback that expects an answer from php-fpm during <timeout> seconds. Nginx takes care of async for you. What your task is is to write what you want in PHP. Now, if you're reading a huge file, then async code in your PHP would make sense, except it's not really needed.
With nginx and sending off requests for processing to a fastcgi worker, scaling becomes trivial. For example, let's assume that 1 PHP machine isn't enough to deal with the amount of requests you're dealing with. No problem, add more machines to nginx's pool.
This is taken from nginx docs:
upstream backend {
server backend1.example.com weight=5;
server backend2.example.com:8080;
server unix:/tmp/backend3;
server backup1.example.com:8080 backup;
server backup2.example.com:8080 backup;
}
server {
location / {
proxy_pass http://backend;
}
}
You define a pool of servers and then assign various weights / proxying options related to balancing how requests are handled.
However, the important part is that you can add more servers to cope with availability requirements.
This is the reason why nginx + php-fpm stack is appealing. Since nginx acts as a proxy, it can proxy requests to node.js as well, letting you handle web socket related operations in node.js (which, in turn, can perform an HTTP request to a PHP endpoint, allowing you to contain your entire app logic in PHP).
I know this answer might not be what you're after, but what I wanted to highlight is the way node.js works (conceptually) is identical to what nginx does when it comes to handling incoming request. You could make php work as node does, but there's no need for that.

Answer 2

Your questions can be summed up as this:
"Could PHP be more like Node?"
to which the answer is of course "Yes." But that leads us to another question:
"Should PHP be more like Node?"
and now the answer is not that obvious.
Of course in theory PHP could be made more like Node - even to a point to make it exactly the same. Just take the next version of Node and call it PHP 6.0 or something.
I would argue that it would be harmful to both Node and PHP. There is a diversity in the runtime environments for a reason. One of the variations is the concurrency model used in a given environment. Making one like the other would mean less choice for the programmer. And less choice is less freedom of expression.
PHP and Node were created in different times and for different reasons.
PHP was developed in 1995 and the name stood for Personal Home Page. The use case was to add some server-side dynamic features to HTML. We already had SSI and CGI at that point but people wanted to be able to inject right into the HTML - synchronously, as it wouldn't make much sense otherwise - results of database queries and other computations. It isn't a surprise how good it is at this job even today.
Node, on the other hand, was developed in 2009 - almost 15 years later - to create high performance network servers. So it shouldn't surprise us that writing such servers in Node is easy and that they have great performance characteristics. This is why Node was created in the first place. One of the choices it had to make was a 100% non-blocking environment of single-threaded, asynchronous event loops.
Now, single-threading concurrency is conceptually more difficult than multi-threading. But if you want performance for I/O-heavy operations then currently you have no other options. You will not be able to create 10,000 threads but you can easily handle 10,000 connections with Node in a single thread. There is a reason why nginx is single-threaded and why Redis is single threaded. And one common characteristic of nginx and Redis is amazing performance - but both of those were hard to write.
Now, as far as Node and PHP go, those technologies are so far from each other that it's hard to even comprehend how their fusion would look like. It reminds me the old April Fool's joke about unifying Perl and Python that so many people believed in.
PHP has its strengths and Node has it strengths. And just like it would be hard to imagine Node with blocking-I/O, it would be equally hard to imagine PHP with non-blocking I/O.
To summarize: it could be possible to make PHP like Node, but I wouldn't expect it to happen any time soon - if ever.