Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity
On 24/09/2009 00:05, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: We do not require you to use IBM connection pooling since we handle this through UOJ and our connection manager. It's worth noting that if you use any software that connection pools you are obliged to buy database connection pooling licences. It doesn't matter whether you use the connection pooling facilities they provide, from a legal and commercial perspective you must buy them, you can't use normal database licences. George Land APT Solutions Ltd ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] IBM Certification: CertMag Invitation - Amex Gift Certificate Drawing
This is the official word from Susie Seigesmund and from IBM: Yes, we [Rocket] will honor existing certifications, and indeed will be administering the same certifications at u2U in Liverpool and Sydney. IBM just doesn't want folks to be registering for these via IBM going forward. Cheers, Susie ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity
We let Apache (inearlier days Netscape web server) use the CGI-interface to call a tiny ksh that calls universe with the POST-ed form in raw format - works with GET too, today. There a relatively small basic routine parses it and places the info in named common. One always present form field tells it what routine to call. All output is collected in a string that is returned to the ksh and apache, and there it is. Has worked flawlessly for over 10 years. And of course there is a fair number of helper functions e.g. make the html for an input field from the info in the uv dictionary with some options. Why our own? AFAIK there wasn't anything usefull out there in1998 when we started programming seriously. Maybe there was but AFAIKThen there wasn't. Drawbacks? It starts a universe process for each call. --mats Matthew Day skrev: Hi, We currently have a system with a VB6 front end and use Universe for the database and business logic. We are looking to develop a web solution for our product. What are people using to inteface universe with the web, and what are your experiences ( both good and bad ) with the route you have chosen. Thanks, Matt ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity
Consider Adobe Flex, now being reBranded as FlashBuilder. --Bill Brutzman ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[U2] Connection Pooling Statement
George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. We have a connection manager written in Java to handle the connections to Universe or Unidata. We adhere to our IBM licensing agreement to the letter: one user one connection. Every call to the database requires a connection. After the processing is done, the connection is released and available for the next user. Since we use AJAX to make our calls, we get lots of requests per second depending on the number of users. If we run out of database licenses, then those requests are queued up in our middleware called U2WebLink until a connection is available or they hit the configurable timeout parameter. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. The technology does not have any connection manager software written. It is a single license meant to used by .NET and Web applications. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:03 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity On 24/09/2009 00:05, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: We do not require you to use IBM connection pooling since we handle this through UOJ and our connection manager. It's worth noting that if you use any software that connection pools you are obliged to buy database connection pooling licences. It doesn't matter whether you use the connection pooling facilities they provide, from a legal and commercial perspective you must buy them, you can't use normal database licences. George Land APT Solutions Ltd ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Interesting! When we've tried to do the same, the time to login/logout/login again KILLED performance - and you had to do it for each 'piece' to stick to the letter of the law... Is UOJ somehow 'faster' at doing these Login/Out/In connections than other methods exposed by U2? -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Doug Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:46 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. We have a connection manager written in Java to handle the connections to Universe or Unidata. We adhere to our IBM licensing agreement to the letter: one user one connection. Every call to the database requires a connection. After the processing is done, the connection is released and available for the next user. Since we use AJAX to make our calls, we get lots of requests per second depending on the number of users. If we run out of database licenses, then those requests are queued up in our middleware called U2WebLink until a connection is available or they hit the configurable timeout parameter. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. The technology does not have any connection manager software written. It is a single license meant to used by .NET and Web applications. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:03 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity On 24/09/2009 00:05, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: We do not require you to use IBM connection pooling since we handle this through UOJ and our connection manager. It's worth noting that if you use any software that connection pools you are obliged to buy database connection pooling licences. It doesn't matter whether you use the connection pooling facilities they provide, from a legal and commercial perspective you must buy them, you can't use normal database licences. George Land APT Solutions Ltd ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[U2] Universe web connectivity
Matt: You can also use a product called DesignBais. It handles most of the issues you'll encounter going to a stateless environment. It has it's own framework already built so you can piggyback right onto these frameworks. It uses UniObjects and is easy to install and setup in a U2 environment (I don't know about other environments). It's fast and will be able to handle your needs. Your learning curve will be significantly lower than an ASP.NET environment, where you'll have to learn everything and build your own frameworks to do most everything. We use both ASP.NET and DesignBais and have found it significantly easier to work with DB. This is because I don't have the time or patience to become an ASP.NET expert and to build all the ASP.NET frameworks required by any MV application. This is even true as we use mv.NET for our ASP.NET connectivity. Without this middleware product earlier development was pretty much impossible to get right using 3rd party ASP.NET developers and me. But with mv.NET we're able to get things done and I can manage all of the connectivity issues. HTH, Bill br...@brianleach.co.uk said the following on 9/23/2009 11:39 PM: Hi If you want a simple way to develop, check out [AD] mvScript [/AD]. Otherwise, UO.Net is easy to use but you will need to handle the concurrency issues brought about by a move to a stateless environment: decide how you are going to use optimistic locking and merging, and how to handle existing subroutines that expect common block entries, user based lists etc. That's true whatever you use for your development. Note; If you are using UO.Net or UOJ for web development you need to have connection pooled licences. Check out the text on your licence agreement: anything else other than connect-on-demand is a breach (mvScript supports both). Maybe Rocket will be more reasonable about this: personally I think the cost of purchasing connection pools is unjustifiable in this market. For the best results, RedBack/WebDE is scalable, fast and a very good model. It is also mature (at least the RedBack part is) and has powered many websites very successfully. Either that or UO.Net will be good, once you have mastered the client langauge of your choice. ASP.Net has the advantage of being reasonably simple, well documented with lots of blogs/examples etc on the internet. But if you're handling lots of multivalued entries their data grid is just appalling: expect to spend money on good components. And don't get the Microsoft self paced materials - they are really, really terrible. I've been working with Silverlight, and it's an uphill struggle to get anything working - not that it is hugely difficult, just it takes sooo long to achieve anything. Fine if you have large dedicated team of developers and designers, but that doesn't sound like the situation here :) Brian On 23 September 2009 at 23:06 Matthew Day matthew4...@ymail.com wrote: Hi, We currently have a system with a VB6 front end and use Universe for the database and business logic. We are looking to develop a web solution for our product. What are people using to inteface universe with the web, and what are your experiences ( both good and bad ) with the route you have chosen. Thanks, Matt ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity
Java - Tomcat and Glassfish (Sun Application Server) with Uniobjects. Matthew Day wrote: Hi, We currently have a system with a VB6 front end and use Universe for the database and business logic. We are looking to develop a web solution for our product. What are people using to inteface universe with the web, and what are your experiences ( both good and bad ) with the route you have chosen. Thanks, Matt ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
David, I don't know what other methods you are using, but this performance speaks for itself. Within in our U2WebLink middleware Java code, we have replication logic. This is not something you would think about for UOJ or the web, but it is an integral part of the nature of this environment because it is transaction based. Our products are layered and work well in our U2 world. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:21 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement Interesting! When we've tried to do the same, the time to login/logout/login again KILLED performance - and you had to do it for each 'piece' to stick to the letter of the law... Is UOJ somehow 'faster' at doing these Login/Out/In connections than other methods exposed by U2? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:32 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
They have a home grown telnet application that runs their business on Universe. The CRM and Document Management that we supply, is just for the sales people, customer service, agents, and management with over 175 logins. How many are in use at a specific moment in time? I don't know, but I haven't had a call that they are slow or need more licenses. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:47 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
My guess is that you're taking users as concurrent logged in users while Doug means them more as staff that may require access to the application. The various API's seem to login much faster than telnet (plus it's much easier to keep the login credentials than setup login scripts in your telnet client). Besides there are definitely some measures being used to throttle the telnet logins. Taken from IBM's UniData Features and Benefits page: IBMR UniDataR is an extended relational data server ideal for embedding in a variety of industry-focused solutions. Its extended relational model is perfect for rapid cost-effective vertical application development with flexible and fast storage and retrieval for the SMB market. UniData simplifies data management and query logic, providing more power for online high-transaction applications. MultiValue data model eases modeling and storing of complex data and improves retrieval performance. Flexible development options, from an integrated Basic development environment to .NET (e.g. MicrosoftR Visual Studio) to JavaT (e.g. Eclipse) and more with a wide array of programming interfaces. I would say what Doug is doing is well within IBM's intent. If I was Doug I would certainly be getting in touch with Rocket about creating synergy with his products and the various Rocket offerings. It looks like there are at least a couple I'm sure they're hoping we will be a good target market for. Some are eclipse based and Doug's experience may be a good fit. My 2 cents Colin Alfke Calgary, Canada -Original Message- From: Of David Wolverton If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. -Original Message- From: Of George Land On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
According to the letter of the U2 terms, common usage of the environment is prohibited without the purchase of a connection pooling license - that means many of you are in violation right now. I personally don't approve of a vendor who has a potential lawsuit pending over a large segment of their customer base and I hope Rocket Software will do something about this. For example: - You can't have a character terminal used as a POS when it is shared by more than one cashier. - You can't have a terminal on a shop floor used by multiple people. In the above examples, to the letter, every user must physically logoff, then log back in before they can perform an operation. Can anyone here really see that happening? This is an issue for non-terminal applications as well: - Web sites, Web Services, SOA, and SAAS cannot be deployed according to current licensing without a connection pooling license. - If you have your U2 system driving your time cards, you should have the server logout and then log back in for every person punching in or out. This increases processing time from about 1 second per transaction to at least 20. - Anyone walking up to a kiosk which uses U2 as a back-end must legally perform some action that causes a physical logout/login. - If you have a U2 port processing inbound data from credit cards, weight scales, bar code scanners, or other devices, you should be logging off and back anytime a new user initiates a transaction. Rocket Software should get someone other than an IBM lawyer who actually understands how this software is used. The situation to-date has been ridiculous. No vendor wants their runtime licenses abused with a thousand end-users on a single license. We need licensing that is somewhere between that and where we are now. This goes for all MV DBMS providers who are stuck in the dark ages of per-seat/per-user licensing. In a world where we have such a high volume of commerce performed over the internet, we need licensing that agrees with the physical limits of the technology. That is - there is only so much you can physically do with a connected process. There is no such thing as unlimited use of a single connection. While any process is occupied, a physical limitation compels us to redirect to another port for another user to perform their operations. Reasonable licensing will allow us to maximize the use of every process, rather than forcing a draconian reconnection, or compelling unused processes to go unused as new processes are started for every possible user. The U2 connection pooling license, and other attempts to extract higher fees as a defensive measure in the face of modern usage, only serve to limit MV as a viable option for modern applications. If it costs too much to deploy a multi-user application with MV, developers will simply choose another platform. IBM gets 100% of nothing with their current pooling license from developers looking for a platform to create a new web-based application. MV DBMS vendors need to understand that we can create a lot more applications, and sell a lot more licenses, if the model is made more reasonable and equitable. Create a low-cost model that allow individual ports to process as much data as they phyically can, or charge based on other metrics like bandwidth, disk usage, CPU cycles. Make a profit on volume of applications sold, rather than trying to coerce the traditional market into making up for lost revenue. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET and other Pick/MultiValue products worldwide, and provides related development services remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com/blog Visit PickWiki.com! Contribute! From: David Wolverton Interesting! When we've tried to do the same, the time to login/logout/login again KILLED performance - and you had to do it for each 'piece' to stick to the letter of the law... Is UOJ somehow 'faster' at doing these Login/Out/In connections than other methods exposed by U2? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Tony, well said. I had not really considered your examples as breaches but if you take the letter of the law I guess they are, which like you says would probably put 99% of sites in the violation of licensing bucket... -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 9:16 a.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement According to the letter of the U2 terms, common usage of the environment is prohibited without the purchase of a connection pooling license - that means many of you are in violation right now. I personally don't approve of a vendor who has a potential lawsuit pending over a large segment of their customer base and I hope Rocket Software will do something about this. For example: - You can't have a character terminal used as a POS when it is shared by more than one cashier. - You can't have a terminal on a shop floor used by multiple people. In the above examples, to the letter, every user must physically logoff, then log back in before they can perform an operation. Can anyone here really see that happening? This is an issue for non-terminal applications as well: - Web sites, Web Services, SOA, and SAAS cannot be deployed according to current licensing without a connection pooling license. - If you have your U2 system driving your time cards, you should have the server logout and then log back in for every person punching in or out. This increases processing time from about 1 second per transaction to at least 20. - Anyone walking up to a kiosk which uses U2 as a back-end must legally perform some action that causes a physical logout/login. - If you have a U2 port processing inbound data from credit cards, weight scales, bar code scanners, or other devices, you should be logging off and back anytime a new user initiates a transaction. Rocket Software should get someone other than an IBM lawyer who actually understands how this software is used. The situation to-date has been ridiculous. No vendor wants their runtime licenses abused with a thousand end-users on a single license. We need licensing that is somewhere between that and where we are now. This goes for all MV DBMS providers who are stuck in the dark ages of per-seat/per-user licensing. In a world where we have such a high volume of commerce performed over the internet, we need licensing that agrees with the physical limits of the technology. That is - there is only so much you can physically do with a connected process. There is no such thing as unlimited use of a single connection. While any process is occupied, a physical limitation compels us to redirect to another port for another user to perform their operations. Reasonable licensing will allow us to maximize the use of every process, rather than forcing a draconian reconnection, or compelling unused processes to go unused as new processes are started for every possible user. The U2 connection pooling license, and other attempts to extract higher fees as a defensive measure in the face of modern usage, only serve to limit MV as a viable option for modern applications. If it costs too much to deploy a multi-user application with MV, developers will simply choose another platform. IBM gets 100% of nothing with their current pooling license from developers looking for a platform to create a new web-based application. MV DBMS vendors need to understand that we can create a lot more applications, and sell a lot more licenses, if the model is made more reasonable and equitable. Create a low-cost model that allow individual ports to process as much data as they phyically can, or charge based on other metrics like bandwidth, disk usage, CPU cycles. Make a profit on volume of applications sold, rather than trying to coerce the traditional market into making up for lost revenue. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET and other Pick/MultiValue products worldwide, and provides related development services remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com/blog Visit PickWiki.com! Contribute! From: David Wolverton Interesting! When we've tried to do the same, the time to login/logout/login again KILLED performance - and you had to do it for each 'piece' to stick to the letter of the law... Is UOJ somehow 'faster' at doing these Login/Out/In connections than other methods exposed by U2? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Doug Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 1:46 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. We have a connection manager written in Java to handle the connections to Universe or Unidata. We adhere to our IBM licensing agreement to the letter: one user one connection. Every call to the database requires a connection. After the processing is done, the connection is released and available for the next user. Since we use AJAX to make our calls, we get lots of requests per second depending on the number of users. If we run out of database licenses, then those requests are queued up in our middleware called U2WebLink until a connection is available or they hit the configurable timeout parameter. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. The technology does not have any connection manager software written. It is a single license meant to used by .NET and Web applications. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:03 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity On 24/09/2009 00:05, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: We do not require you to use IBM connection pooling since we handle this through UOJ and our connection manager. It's worth noting that if you use any software that connection pools you are obliged to buy database connection pooling licences. It doesn't matter whether you use the connection pooling facilities they provide, from a legal and commercial perspective you must buy them, you can't use normal database licences. George Land APT Solutions Ltd ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
David, I think your problem may be that you are logging only when you get a request? If you were to have lines pre-logged-in, though the complexity of the middleware increases, you may find a corresponding increase in performance ... and with a little more effort you may also decide to NOT kill a used connection immediately, 'cause if you get another request in from the same client soon, shouldn't be an issue using the previously used connection (that is still open) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 5:47 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:32 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
I RedBack you would be using WebShares which is basically like Connection Pools. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
I don't believe IBM could have exceptions, ESPECIALLY in the USA, as my understanding is that monopoly and anti-trust laws click in. However, if my foggy memory serves me correctly, price of a Redback licence corresponded to the price of a connection pool licence, and I believe set the bar for pricing OF a connection pool licence! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 8:40 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Interestingly, one of the scenario's we ran past IBM back in April/March was the use of disk shares, where people could drop files from windows applications which would be picked up by a U2 phantom processed they characterised this as requiring a connection pool licence! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Batson Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 8:43 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I RedBack you would be using WebShares which is basically like Connection Pools. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement from a different perspective
We as a community want U2 technology to have all the bells and whistles and to market and generally upgrades its game. But many of us want U2 to do it for free. If we don't buy appropriate numbers of licenses, then U2 will not be a viable business proposition to a supplier. As a customer we need to pay a fair price for a fair service. Sure, at the same time we need to encourage U2 to provide a fair service for a fair price and maybe we need to encourage better pricing for U2 Connect. Forget the law for the moment and consider what is fair. For if something is abused, then things will be forced upon us that we may not like. In the RDBMS world the majority do not have concurrent licensing. They have per user which means if you access the system through the web, through the PC and through a phone, that is 3 licenses. If you have a 100 users and connect 3 ways you need 300 licenses. Alternatively they run processor licenses based on the power of the processor. This is getting muddy too particularly with a move to virtual servers. Where the virtual server may only use 2 processors of an 8 processor machine. Is the licensing on the virtual or physical processes. When customer A runs 100 users with 2 licenses, then they undermine it for all the other customers. They have equal customer support to customer B who has 100 licenses, but they only contribute 2% to the RD and support framework that customer B provides. If customer B followed customer A methodology then U2 licenses will drop by 98%, which will be quickly followed by 100% because it is now seen as a declining product. Something is only worth what you pay for it, or the mantra if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. As a community we should look for a better position between the two positions on licensing. Playing devil's advocate David Jordan ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
You have WEBSHARES... Those are your 'pooling' elements! DW -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement from a different perspective
Well stated, David! ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Consider this an AD even though I also propose using freeware... From: Ross Ferris Interestingly, one of the scenario's we ran past IBM back in April/March was the use of disk shares, where people could drop files from windows applications which would be picked up by a U2 phantom processed they characterised this as requiring a connection pool licence! We don't need IBM for that. We can do that fairly quickly right now. I even wrote a U2 file system interface a while back so that I could view/update/drag/drop U2 data within Windows Explorer - or with any Windows application. I think at the time I was getting tired of the why isn't it free or open source? mantras so I didn't make it public. I'll probably resurrect it if there is enough interest. People can use my freeware mvExec too: nospamNebula-RnD.com/freeware/ Anyone who has mv.NET can have it and use it completely for free. If you don't have mv.NET I can provide a license - no, not for free. If you want it to be retrofit with UO.NET (w/wo connection pooling) I can do that too as a service - no, not for free, but I'd publish it as freeware. For drag/drop we would need to add a file system monitor but that's pretty easy too. There's lots of info on the Net for someone to do this on their own. Does all of that fall under the connection pooling scenario? Yup. Stupid? Yup. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET and other Pick/MultiValue products worldwide, and provides related development services remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com/blog Visit PickWiki.com! Contribute! ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Woa - this one right here just picked up a large pack of users. LOL -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:52 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement Interestingly, one of the scenario's we ran past IBM back in April/March was the use of disk shares, where people could drop files from windows applications which would be picked up by a U2 phantom processed they characterised this as requiring a connection pool licence! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Batson Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 8:43 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I RedBack you would be using WebShares which is basically like Connection Pools. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity
We use IHS (IBM's version of Apache) and WebSphere AppServer along with UOJ to connect to UV. Each user-initiated UOJ subroutine call to UV establishes a new logged-in session that consumes a license while the subroutine runs. When the data is returned to UV, the session logs off and the license is available again. We've been using this connection method since '99, and performance has always been good. I think establishing a new authenticated connection to the UniRPC daemon and tearing it down again has very little overhead. One caveat, though - installing WebSphere AppServer and its corresponding IDE is non-trivial. I was recently forced to upgrade from version 5.1 to 7.0 due to end of support, and the whole project took me about 3 months (granted, I did have some interruptions). WebSphere is very easy to use, but a nightmare to install. I halfway think that's by design so you're more inclined to hire IBM consultants to help with the installation. -John -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Day Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:07 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] Universe web connectivity Hi, We currently have a system with a VB6 front end and use Universe for the database and business logic. We are looking to develop a web solution for our product. What are people using to inteface universe with the web, and what are your experiences ( both good and bad ) with the route you have chosen. Thanks, Matt ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Ross The question that I would ask, Was this one-directional? PC to U2. Or bi-directional? PC to U2 and back. One-directional is data collection. Bi-directional could be seen as a way around buying licences. Steve -- Sent from my Palm Pre Ross Ferris wrote: Interestingly, one of the scenario's we ran past IBM back in April/March was the use of disk shares, where people could drop files from windows applications which would be picked up by a U2 phantom amp; processed they characterised this as requiring a connection pool licence! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Batson Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 8:43 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I RedBack you would be using WebShares which is basically like Connection Pools. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that lt;IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Exactly. It's been a while since I've been involved with RedBack, or been involved in the contracts, but webshares are paid for as part of RedBack, not UV or UD, aren't they? Dollars lost on the DB side are gained on the RedBack side. Since our Vendor De Jour owns both pieces, they don't mind. It's just illegal for anyone else to use that same technological trick, right. I am impressed that anyone, without license pooling, can get adequate performance without doing something like what RedBack does. All this is a bit artificial hard to enforce. Archaic might be a better word. What would Temenos do if Rocket made RedBack work with jBASE? How do other (non-MV) DBMS companies handle this? By making their base product more expensive to start with? By charging by some other mechanism than number of concurrent users? Size of hardware platform it runs on? I think most don't really care about connectivity to their product, let alone price by it. You have WEBSHARES... Those are your 'pooling' elements! DW ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
But what you are describing is connection pooling which is when you need connection pooling licenses. George On 24/09/2009 23:27, Ross Ferris ro...@stamina.com.au wrote: David, I think your problem may be that you are logging only when you get a request? If you were to have lines pre-logged-in, though the complexity of the middleware increases, you may find a corresponding increase in performance ... and with a little more effort you may also decide to NOT kill a used connection immediately, 'cause if you get another request in from the same client soon, shouldn't be an issue using the previously used connection (that is still open) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 5:47 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:32 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
It is the exception, you are deemed to be using an approved connection pooling mechanism and a redback webshare costs the same as a connection pooled database license except for the fact that that you need to buy a database license as well as the redback license George On 24/09/2009 23:39, Charles Stevenson stevenson.c...@gmail.com wrote: I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
