Any phantom that uses the sockets api - or a derivative of it like the http or soap api will become an interactive phantom - the reason being it is in some way interacting with the outside world. Of course the way round it would be to use curl instead ...
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: 31 January 2011 15:05 To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] What do you do with CallHTTP? Thanks for the feedback folks. The reason I was doing this query was to review the 'reason' for the recent license changes that make CallHTTP 'consume' a seat if it is used within a 'phantom' process. I didn't say WHY I was interested get 'genuine' usage comments. Like many of you, I use CallHTTP to get a piece of data from a remote machine (in my case, a UniVerse server is validating a code from a UniData machine). But with a recent update to UniVerse, we started having weird 'failures' -- turns out it failed when all the 'seats' on the UniVerse machine were in use, and the Phantom attempted a CallHTTP lookup. Blam! Dead phantom! I read all the uses people posted, and unless I was mistaken, no one was seriously using CallHTTP for the purpose of serving multiple 'logical users'. It appears everyone is using CallHTTP as a way to gather a piece of data that could have just as easily been in a file on the local disk drive if the machine you have could have limitless resources. In my use, and apparently most of yours, to call CallHTTP 'interactive' would be the same as calling a disk read 'interactive'. 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! https://u2tc.rocketsoftware.com/rsp-portal/rsp/solutionDetail.asp?id=0002370 1?sterm=iphantom&exact=&searchAction=doSolutionSearch.asp&catFilter=02n40000 000Tqmn&oType= Am I out on a limb here saying that CallHTTP should probably not cause a Phantom to go iPhantom? I mean, Rocket can do whatever the heck they want, it's their sandbox after all and we really have no choice but to suck it up... But is the logic they employed flawed as I think it is? Or am I just a loon? (Hmmmm.. really, the two questions are not mutually exclusive I guess... But you get the point... ) I'm interested in comments on the topic, if any. DW _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date: 01/30/11 _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
