I think you have hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. The old RPC broker pretty much required that the server and clients be on the same network to provide secuity for the system because of the way the callback was made to the server. The new broker fixed that but did not work well with previous versions of GT.M, With this new configuration, secure remote connections from CPRS to the server can be set up allowing for ASP use of VistA with GTM on Linux as well as the other platforms while opening only one port.
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 05:00 pm, Mark Street wrote: > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 06:44, K.S. Bhaskar wrote: > > >>4. Network services can now be written in GT.M and deployed under > > >>inetd/xinetd. > > > > [KSB] This will allow the new "direct connect" CPRS GUI to be used more > > easily. Effectively, it means that VistA can be packaged & deployed > > like other network services under inetd/xinetd, which is a standard way > > of deploying network services on UNIX/Linux. > > StandAlone vs xinetd/inetd superserver. Can it still be run stand alone? > > In a busy institution what would the benefits of using a superserver rather > than standalone process? Ease of configuration? System Resources? > Connection control? > > Usually less often used services are run under xinetd/inetd to save system > resources and fine tune security and connection control. -- Nancy Anthracite ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
