Interview Bank

From Frontend Engineer to Agent Engineer in 30 Days

D7 Packaging It as a Service: Fastify + SSE + Docker (dg P07); Week One Retrospective

• For streaming LLM responses, would you pick SSE or WebSocket, and why?流式返回大模型回复，你会选 SSE 还是 WebSocket？为什么？

  Common in ChinaCommon overseasBasic#sse#streaming#api-design

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. The hinge is 'how would you pick', not 'what is the difference'. Reciting 'SSE is one-way, WebSocket is two-way' scores nothing — that is the first paragraph of any doc.
  2. Ask one question that nearly decides it: does the client need frequent upstream messages on this connection? Chat completion is one request followed by a long push, which is exactly SSE's shape. Collaborative editing, realtime games and voice are what WebSocket is for.
  3. Give three practical wins for SSE: it is ordinary HTTP, so auth headers, cookies, rate limiting, logging, CDNs and reverse proxies all keep working; the server just writes bytes into a response, with no separate connection lifecycle to manage; and the wire format is plain text, so curl is your debugger. WebSocket runs an upgraded protocol where most of that tooling has to be rebuilt.
  4. Volunteer SSE's two real limits before they are raised. First, the browser's native EventSource can only issue GET, while model endpoints require POST, so real frontends hand-roll the parser with fetch and the spec's Last-Event-ID auto-reconnect never applies. Second, HTTP/1.1 caps concurrent connections per origin, so several tabs each holding a stream compete; HTTP/2 largely removes this.
  5. Land on a decision rule: one-way push means SSE, high-frequency bidirectional means WebSocket, and when unsure start with SSE — its escape hatch is adding one upstream endpoint, while WebSocket's escape hatch is rebuilding your infrastructure.
  6. Expect the follow-up: what about the 'stop generating' button? It does not need the same connection — send a plain POST carrying the run id, have the server abort upstream, and the SSE stream ends on its own. This one separates people who shipped it from people who read about it.

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 这题的题眼是「怎么选」，不是「有什么区别」。只背出「SSE 单向、WebSocket 双向」拿不到分，因为那是文档第一段。
  2. 先问自己一个问题，它几乎决定了答案：这条连接上客户端需不需要频繁上行？聊天补全是「一次请求、一路往回推」，上行只有最开始那一次，完全落在 SSE 的形状里；协同编辑、实时游戏、语音这种双向高频才轮到 WebSocket。
  3. 然后给 SSE 的三条实际好处：它就是普通 HTTP，鉴权头、Cookie、限流、日志、CDN、反向代理这一整套现成设施全部照用；服务端只是往响应里写字节，不需要额外的连接管理；协议是纯文本，出问题 curl 一下就能看。WebSocket 走的是升级后的独立协议，前面那套东西大多要重做一遍。
  4. 接着说 SSE 的两个真实限制，主动说破比被问出来强：一是浏览器原生的 EventSource 只能发 GET，而大模型接口必须 POST，所以真实前端都是 fetch 手写解析，规范里那套 Last-Event-ID 自动重连一行都用不上；二是 HTTP/1.1 下同域并发连接数有限制，多个标签页各开一条长连接会互相挤占，HTTP/2 之后这条基本消失。
  5. 结论要落到一句可判断的话：单向推送选 SSE，双向高频选 WebSocket；拿不准就先用 SSE，因为它的退路是加一个上行接口，而 WebSocket 的退路是重做整套基础设施。
  6. 可以预期的追问：那大模型产品里的「停止生成」按钮怎么办？答案是它根本不需要走同一条连接——另发一个普通的 POST 请求带上这次生成的 id，服务端收到就中止上游，SSE 那条连接自然结束。这个追问很能区分有没有真做过。

  Key points

  • Decide by upstream frequency: one request plus a long push (chat completion) fits SSE; high-frequency bidirectional traffic needs WebSocket
  • SSE is plain HTTP, so auth, rate limiting, logging, proxies and CDNs all still apply, and curl is enough to debug it
  • Name SSE's limits yourself: EventSource is GET-only while model endpoints need POST, so spec auto-reconnect does not apply; HTTP/1.1 also caps per-origin connections
  • When unsure start with SSE — adding one upstream endpoint is cheaper than rebuilding infrastructure around WebSocket
  • A stop button does not need the same connection: POST the run id and abort upstream, and the stream ends by itself

  答题要点

  • 先判断上行频率：一次请求、一路往回推的场景（聊天补全）用 SSE，双向高频（协同编辑、语音）用 WebSocket
  • SSE 就是普通 HTTP，鉴权、限流、日志、代理、CDN 这套设施全部照用，排查时 curl 就够
  • SSE 的限制要主动说：EventSource 只能 GET，而模型接口必须 POST，所以自动重连用不上；HTTP/1.1 下同域连接数有限
  • 拿不准先选 SSE：加一个上行接口就能补足，而换 WebSocket 要重做整套基础设施
  • 「停止生成」不用走同一条连接，另发一个 POST 带 run id 让服务端中止上游即可