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
