My requirement is
I have two machines, client and server. On server ONLY one port is open (which should not be JNDI port). Client needs reference of EJB remote objects which are deployed in Server, so that it can call methods on those EJB objects.
Here I am planning for RMI communication between client and server on the open port on Server. Upon getting the call server will return the EJB3 object to the client.
Here are my questions
Does RMI allow to return remote EJB3 references to client?
If yes, once EJB reference forwarded to the client, if client calls a method in remote EJB, using which port this communication takes place? Becausue only one port open on server ?
Here is it fine to go with RMI or EJB can be used as communication? I have searched in net, but its not possible to bind an EJB to a port.
Can RMI application deployed in Glassfish?
Thanks
Dek
Does RMI allow to return remote EJB3 references to client?
Yes.
If yes, once EJB reference forwarded to the client, if client calls a method in remote EJB, using which port this communication takes place?
Whichever Piet the EJB is exported on.
Becausue only one port open on server?
Eh?
Here is it fine to go with RMI or EJB can be used as communication?
They are the same thing. The question is meaningless.
I have searched in net, but its not possible to bind an EJB to a port.
That depends on a lot of things such as whether you're using RMI/IIOP and possibly in the specific container.
Can RMI application deployed in Glassfish?
Yes.
Related
I'm trying to understand the topology of Worklight. Specifically how does a WL Server handles its applications.
If I understood correctly, a WL Server has a <httpEndpoint>. This means that a set of WL Applications will have their context root on that port. Right?
This means, If I want to put /worklightconsole on a custom port, I'll need a network installation instead of a standalone so that I can have a cluster of WL instances and each one will bind to a different port.
Did I understood this matter correctly? Then I can use a reverse proxy to needle my requests to the correct instance of WL Server.
Right?
Thanks in advance!
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSZH4A_6.1.0/com.ibm.worklight.installconfig.doc/admin/c_typical_topology_of_an_ibm_wor.html
Yes the httpEndpoint entry defines the http and https port and the WL applications have their context root on these ports.
If you have different Liberty Servers with the same WL runtime, be sure that the you share the same database and same schema.
After that you can use a Web Proxy to load balance the requests between the different Liberty servers.
I'm planning on using a wsDualHttpBinding for a WCF service with callbacks. The clients will be a windows form application communicating to the service over the internet. Obviously I have no control over the firewall on the client side, so I'm wondering what is the proper way to set the ClientBaseAddress on the client side?
Right now in my intiial testing I'm running the service and client on the same pc and i am setting the binding as follows
Dim binding As System.ServiceModel.WSDualHttpBinding = Struct.Endpoint.Binding
binding.ClientBaseAddress = New Uri("http://localhost:6667")
But I have a feeling this won't work when deploying over the internet because "localhost" won't translate to the machine address (much less worrying about NAT translation) and that port might be blocked by the clients firewall.
What is the proper way to handle the base address for callbacks to a remote client?
some one tell me if i do not specify ClientBaseAddress then WCF infratructure creates a default client base address at port 80 which is used for the incoming connections from the service. Since port 80 is usually open to firewalls, things should just work.
so just tell me when win form wcf client apps will run then how can i open my custom port like "6667" and also guide me what library or what approach i should use as a result response should come from client side router
to pc and firewall will not block anything. please discuss this issue with real life scenario how people handle this kind of situation in real life. thanks
The proper way is to use TCP transport instead of HTTP transport. Duplex communication over HTTP requires two HTTP connections - one opened from client to server (that's OK) and second opened from server to client. This can work only in scenarios where you have full control over both ends. There is simply too many complications which cannot be avoided just by guessing what address to use like:
Local Windows or third party firewall has to be configured
Permission for application to run - listening on HTTP is not allowed by default unless UAC is turned off or application is running as admin. You must allow listening on the port through netsh or httpcfg (windows XP and 2003) - that again requires admin permissions.
Port can be already used by another application. In case of 80 it can be used by any local web server - for example IIS.
Private networks and network devices - if your client machine is behind the NAT the port forwarding must be configured but what if you have two machines running your application on the same private network? You cannot forward from the same incoming port to two machines.
All these issues can be avoided mostly only when you have control over whole infrastructure. That is the reason why HTTP duplex communication is useful mostly for intranet scenarios and why for example Silverlight offers another implementation where the second connection is not created and Silverlight client instead polls server continuously to check if there is any callback available.
TCP transport requires only single connection from client to server because TCP protocol is natively duplex so the server can call back the client through the same connection. When you deploy a public service you usually have control over infrastructure on the server side so you can make necessary changes in configuration to make it work.
I think this also answers your previous question.
Not sure if i'm really up-to-date, but i'm looking in a way to convert my existing project to use HTML5 websockets.
Here's my situation :
- Client runs a modified java vnc applet with extra parameter (CONNECT).
- Modified stunnel listenin on webserver (with both public, private IP) port 443
- Client connects to 443 and sends (prior to RFB) a HTTP packet like :
'CONNECT 10.0.0.1:4001'
- Stunnel opens a new stream to 10.0.0.1:4001 using SSL wrapper
- VNC Server (#10.0.0.1:4001) responds, connection is established.
Now I want to get rid of the Java Applet and switch to Websocket using NoVNC.
I want to be able to :
- Open a single port on the webserver (HTTPS preferably)
- Have client connect using HTML5 only (no more java applet)
I cannot change :
- VNCServer will still be listening on private LAN only.
- VNCServer will still listen to a bunch of ports, each corresponding to
a virtual server
Questions are :
- How to give NoVNC the notion of target HOST:PORT ?
- Is stunnel still be usable ? Or should I change to websocket proxy ?
If anyone has a starting point, i'd really appreciate !
Disclaimer: I created noVNC so my answer may be heavily biased ;-)
I'll answer you second question first:
stunnel cannot be used directly by noVNC. The issue is that the WebSockets protocol has an HTTP-like initial handshake and the messages are framed. In addition, until binary payload support is added to WebSockets, the payload is base64 encoded by the websockets proxy (websockify). Adding the necessary support to stunnel would be non-trivial but certainly doable. In fact noVNC issue #37 is an aspirational feature to add this support to stunnel.
First question:
noVNC already has a concept of HOST:PORT via the RFB.connect(host, port, password) method. The file vnc_auto.html at the top level shows how to get noVNC to automatically connect on page load based on the host, port and password specified as URL query string parameters.
However, I think what you are really asking is how do you get noVNC to connect to alternate VNC server ports on the backend. This problem is not directly addressed by noVNC and websockify. There are several ways to solve this and it usually involves an out-of-band setup/authorization mechanism so that the proxy can't be used to launch attacks by arbitrary hosts. For example, at my company we have a web based management framework that integrates noVNC and when the user wants to connect to the console, an authenticated AJAX call is used to configure the proxy for that particular user and the system they want to connect to. Our web management interface is internal only.
Ganeti Web Manager uses a similar model and the source is available. They have a fork of VNCAuthProxy that has WebSockets support. They use a control channel from the web interface to the VNCAuthProxy to setup a temporary password associated with a specific VNC server host:port.
Also OpenStack (Nova) integrates noVNC uses a similar out-of-band token based model to allow access with their nova-vncproxy.
Some links:
Ganeti Web Manager
Wiki page about how noVNC works in Ganeti Web Manager
Ganeti Web Manager sources
Ganeti Web Manager VNCAUthProxy sources
Using noVNC in Nova/OpenStack
OpenStack fork of noVNC
Old nova-vnc-proxy code
Current nova vnc proxy code
Here's the scenario: A client machine has connected to the 'Work network' via VPN (Cisco VPN Client). The work network hosts a machine that has a WCF service with nettcp binding. The client tries to connect to this service and gets an exception as follows:
Could not connect to
net.tcp://workMachine:2010/SomeService.
The connection attempt lasted for a
time span of 00:00:01.3180754. TCP
error code 10061: No connection could
be made because the target machine
actively refused it workMachine:2010.
Things I tried:
Changed the Workgroup of the client
machine to the work network
workgroup
Added domain/username/password for the Windows Networking Password vault, so that it can be used to connect
Changed the wcf service path with an IP address instead of the workMachine name
Checked client machine firewalls and added to allow the wcf client through it
All above failed and didn't work.
Has anyone encountered similar issues?
The client machine is on Windows 7
SecurityMode of the WCF service is set to NONE - so that shouldn't be an issue.
Any insights will be helpful
You may need to supply client credentials explicitly through your proxy object.
Assume that the proxy object in the code below implements one of the ClientBase interfaces.
proxy.ClientCredentials.Windows.ClientCredential.UserName = "clientaccount";
proxy.ClientCredentials.Windows.ClientCredential.Password = "S3cr3t1337Pwd";
Could you - just for testing purposes - expose the same service on the same machine using a HTTP endpoint, and try to connect to that one from your VPN client?
NetTcp is an excellent choice behind the corporate firewall - just don't know how the Cisco VPN client might cause troubles here, that might not show up when using an http-based protocol. Just a wild guess for now, but if you have nothing else to go on, give it a try!
Marc
Just another thought to assist with debugging of these kind of issues, using CMD execute "netstat -a" (you can append the -o switch and find the related process id also) and see if the port in question is currently open, if it isn't you may have an issue with the SMSvcHost.exe (this is the Windows process for managing an IIS hosted TCP Service).
I've had this issue before and rectified it by restarting the following services (obviously you'll need to carefully consider this if you are dealing with a live production system):
NetTcpActivator (Net. Tcp Listening Adapter)
NetTcpPortSharing (Net. Tcp Port Sharing Service)
and possibly if relevant:
NetMsmqActivator (Net. Pipe Listener Adapter)
NetPipeActivator (Net. Pipe Listener Adapter)
Hope this helps someone!
J.
I need to create a self-hosted WCF service.
I need secure duplex connection between client and server through Internet.
I read some documents of WCF and found that the netTcpBinding is suitable for intranet application, because the SSL is only point 2 point. If it is an internet application, the connection must not be point 2 point, am I correct? so SSL in transport security with netTcpBinding is not suitable?
so what combination should I use to create a secure duplex internet application?
thank you very much.
I have tried http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WCF/WCFWPFChat.aspx
this tutorial use netTcpBinding and endpoint localhost
I change the endpoint localhost to a name based url, forward a port in my router to my development PC, open the same port at Windows firewall.
The client program can chat with each cients program in different machines, BUT the callback connection will lost after one minute.
I also tried changing the binding to wsDualHttpBinding, the clients program can chat with each clients in the same machine and kept the callback connection in the reliableSession inactivityTimeout setting. However another client program in another machine cannot join the server, if I turn off Windows firewall on that machine, the client program can connect.
It seems that tcp binding can let the client program connecting to the server with Windows firewall turn on. but callback connection lost.
and the wsDualHttpBinding can keep the callback connections. but cannot connect to server if Windows firewall on.
Is there a way to kept the netTcpBinding callback connection as in the wsDualHttpBinding?
It sounds like you have two issues- duplex connection and security.
If you truly need a duplex connection (eg, server-initiated callbacks), neither of these will work very well over the internet unless you have very fine control over the firewalls on both ends (the client still has to expose a publicly accessible HTTP endpoint for the server to call back). The best way would be to use the new relay services with .NET 4.0- this allows for a mimic'd server-initiated connection through firewalls.
EDIT: this is now called AppFabric, and is part of the Windows Azure infrastructure
On the security front, you can always use message security over the service bus, but I don't see a reason why transport security would be a problem either.
To answer user248724,
The client program can chat with each
cients program in different machines,
BUT the callback connection will lost
after one minute.after one minute.
You need either have the client or the server to ping each other at least every minute to keep the connection socket alive.