I am using UCMA 4.0 currently. I am developing on sample based on UCMA 4.0. In that sample I need 4 conversation objects to connect a one call with my application.
So I want know how may conversation objects hold an one application endpoint in UCMA 4.0? So that I will know, how may calls an one application endpoint going to handle.
I'm not sure there is a limit to the number of active "conversations" a UMCA endpoint can be used at any one time.
Having multiple active conversations in a UMCA application, is what I would consider normal usage.
Related
In our application we have a back-to-back-connection between an operator (client) and a caller, via an ucma-application we built. Now we want to transfer the caller to another operator or number.
This transfer is attended, so we want to keep the call in the client at least until the transfer is completed.
The client application tells the ucma-application to do the transfer. As such, the server makes a transfer on the leg from ucma -> caller. In this scenario, the leg from ucma to the client application remains intact, but we want to receive information about this transfer so that we can show the transfer status in the client application. If the transfer fails, it should also be clear to the operator (it should also be on hold during the time of the transfer, and continue to be on hold even after transfer failed).
Which is the correct way to do this in UCMA?
It's hard to give you advice as there are multiple ways to do what you want depending on what you need to achieve.
I think the main problem is that you are doing the transfer in the middle, you can't tell the Lync Client to go on "hold". Because of this, you can only put the call on hold from the point of view of UMCA application. This means that if you will have to provide your own UI to unhold the call if it fails, maybe from your own Client Application GUI.
What you could do is write a Lync Client SDK controlled Lync Client application. If you have a Lync Client SDK controlled Lync Client, you could remote control the Lync Client to do the transfer, that way you get the standard Lync Client failed transfer UI. If you do this, what is the point of the UCMA application?
If you have to do it from the UCMA point of view, you could:
Provide the UI in your only Client Application (I would think no nice) including controlling the hold status on a failure
Lync Client SDK controlled Lync Client to put the call on Hold that way it's the standard Lync Client way to unhold on failure, then the only need to worry about the display of a failed transfer. Maybe display something in your client application, maybe a send a in call IM from the UCMA application?
See if the Lync Client support BoardWork Extensions (specifically the Remote Control Hold Event Package). If it does then you can remotely put the call on hold, most likely though that it doesn't :(
I'm building a WCF service to handle all QuickBooks SDK functionality for two companies. Since the QuickBooks SDK needs to open/close the actual QuickBooks application to process a request, only one can be handled at a time or QuickBooks goes into a really bad state. I'm looking for the best way to allow end users to make a QuickBooks data request, and have my WCF application hold that request until the previous request is completed.
If nothing is currently being processed, then the request will go through immediately.
Does anyone know of the best method to handle that type of functionality? Anything third party/built-in .NET libraries?
Thanks!
Use WCF Throttling. Its configurable and will solve your problem without code changes.
See my answer for WCF ConcurrencyMode Single and InstanceContextMode PerCall.
One way to do this is to Place a Queue between the user and the Quickbooks Application:
The request from the user is placed i a Queue or Data table.
A background process reads the one item at a time out of the Queue, sends it to Quickbooks and Places the result in a result table.
The Client applictaion reads the result from the result table.
This requires some work, but the user will allways be able to submit requests and only one will be processed at a time.
The solution given by ErnieL will also work if you use Concurrency mode Single, but in Heavy load scenarios the users will get timeouts.
my company bought a third party application. There's no documentation, there's no support. this application is using .net, and it creates a queue.
I need to write an application to pick up the message as soon as it gets to the queue.
which binding I should use? I read the difference between these two binding. still confused which one to use.
This decision must be depend on your third party application. NetMsmqBinding used full only if you have both side WCF application. If your application push message without WCF then you have to go ahead with MsmqIntegrationBinding.
I have a scenario where I need to expose a bunch of event messages that have been created in NServiceBus to third parties over a simple authenticated REST API. The third party may or may not be using .NET (and they might even be JavaScript in the browser).
I understand that that pub/sub is a push mechanism, but I'm looking for a polling mechanism. Is this even possible in NServiceBus? Is this what an adapter is for, or is that for accepting inbound messages?
Typically you would not want to expose your service bus to third parties. You could manage to have some transport deliver to subscribers but then you would be sending an internal structure to the outside world. You also did mention that you need a pull mechanism via a REST interface.
What I would suggest is to have a subscriber within your service bus that listens to the relevant messages and then either saves them in a serialized form in a type of 'event store' or de-normalizes them into the resources that the REST interface would expose. These messages/resources would contain the relevant date/time stamp.
It would be up to the consumer of the REST API to specify some point in time to retrieve the resources from. So the third party would simply keep track of when last they retrieved the data. Of course they could retrieve as much as they need and new 'subscribers' would be able to retrieve the entire history if required. Each message/resource should also have a GUID of sorts to be able to aid idempotence.
Actually I have created a chat application is it possible to send data to particular client only?
It should be possible, we don't know how you implemented the chat application but there's no reason you can't send to a single client. In fact that's probably what you're doing already, just to every client (in a loop or something).