I Believe this change was made by IBM, not rocket, prior to the sale of U2. I thought that any of the calls that open sockets as a phantom will consume a license now, not just CallHTTP.
The READ/WRITE method even though it can still be abused, has it's issues with consuming cpu while checking for any new "entries" in the file, where as the socket method doesn't seem to have that problem. I've tried both, and am willing to deal with the cpu time waste because I've had too many issues with synching with the socket methods. George > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:u2-users- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of David Wolverton > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:05 AM > To: 'U2 Users List' > Subject: Re: [U2] What do you do with CallHTTP? > > > Here is the link for the 'business case' for making CallHTTP 'eat a > seat' > when used in a Phantom. I wanted to see if the logic made sense for > the > CallHTTP feature. My point to Rocket will be that someone could make a > phantom into a 'multi-user' server by using READ/WRITEs from Text Files > -- > yet those are 'allowed' -- so trying to 'lock down' the server against > a > POSSIBLE misuse of the license terms by removing needed features seems > counterproductive. UNLESS, that is, you're going to lock down EVERY > POSSIBLE way to misuse the system - Meaning, phantoms should not be > able to > READ or WRITE at all. Heck, phantoms should not even EXIST since their > existence could lead to license misuse! > _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
