Well, in a sense push over HTTP is what I'm trying to accomplish, but a two-way push that HTTP technically doesn't support but I've been able to make work through customization of a Servlet and using a Socket that initiates the communication.
In this case I can't control the backend port 80 since it is controlled by the web server. I know this sounds strange, but it works very well if the sandbox restrictions don't get in the way. ;) --- In [email protected], "Peter Farland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, if you're not controlling the backend of port 80 then that's a > different story entirely. I thought that you were only using port 80 > because of firewall restrictions, but I didn't know you also didn't want > to control the backend of port 80 too. Are you really just trying to do > push over HTTP? > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Matt > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Socket to Port 80 > > > > If I'm understanding the way the xmlsocket:// protocol works properly > then I believe this is problematic. With a Socket connection I'm able > to connect back to the web server on the same port because I fulfill > the HTTP request requirements to get me where I want. However, it > looks as though xmlsocket:// requires an arbitrary communication > protocol via XML, not HTTP. Is that correct? > > My primary purpose in wanting to establish a connection to the server > via port 80 is so I don't have to worry about Firewall issues for > clients since they already had to connect to port 80 to get the SWF > file. It doesn't look like there's any way for me to get the > xmlsocket:// connection to communication via HTTP is there? > > Sorry for the complex requirements, but if I can jump this hurdle this > will make for a very nice communications system. > > Thanks again. > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > , "Peter Farland" <pfarland@> wrote: > > > > I did a little more digging, and despite the way that sentence reads > in > > the documentation for securityError, this port limitation is not > > actually independent of security sandbox policies and can be avoided > > with the correct policy settings. > > > > Take a look at the documentation for the connect() method: > > > > http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/2/langref/flash/net/Socket.html#connect > <http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/2/langref/flash/net/Socket.html#connect> > () > > > > It appears that you can specify a policy file for ports less than > 1024, > > but it can only be done via the method I mentioned via responding to > the > > <policy-file-request/> token and it appears that despite that you're > not > > explicitly using an XML socket, for the purposes of locating a policy > > file you do use the xmlsocket://myserver <xmlsocket://myserver> as > the protocol in the URL to > > loadPolicyFile. > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > ] On > > Behalf Of Paul DeCoursey > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:16 PM > > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Socket to Port 80 > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > , "Peter Farland" <pfarland@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'll give this a try, but I'm not actually using > > > > XMLSocketbut a straight Socket ... > > > > > > [Pete] I did see that, but was looking around at samples for loading > > > custom policy files over a socket and must have cut and pasted one > > that > > > included the xmlsocket: in the protocol. But protocols aside, I > think > > > the next paragraph explains your issue and it is not related to > policy > > > files at all... > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe I remember reading something about that in > > > > the Flex documentation that it has to do with it being > > > > a Socket connection to a port under 1024. > > > > > > [Pete] Ah, yes, you're right. It is listed as an explicit security > > error > > > in the documentation if one attempts to connect to a port less than > > > 1024. From my reading of this documentation it is mentioned as a > > > restriction independent of any security sandbox policies. > > > > > > > > > > Although this is no help, I just thought I would chime in with a > > rant... Why can't we open a socket on a port lower than 1024? I would > > understand if it were to open a ServerSocket but these are sockets. > > Although we can use proxies or install our services on higher ports, > > which will probably be blocked by firewalls in the real world I find > > this limiting. I'm sure this is all because of plugin/browser > > limitations, and it probably makes sense to some "nerd" somewhere. > > >
