Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusual?

[bjacobson]

I've been struggling with trying to get a 2nd application running on an Alpha server, and finally uncovered the problem explained in one of Steve Wood's excellent posts.

" ... Fact is you cannot properly run three separate applications in one or three folders under the webroot without also running multiple instances of Alpha Five, using a different IP address for each to properly isolate. Without this arrangement, each application will 'share' session variables... "

I come from a Lotus Notes background, which has a true server. The server supports a basically unlimited number of applications. The same is true of SQL Server - you create an unlimited number of databases which are managed by one server instance.

I understand Alpha's heritage as a .dbf based product for relatively small applications, but building web applications is now the core of its business. But it seems to me that the relics of that past complicate the usability, and (for me at least) the comprehensibility of the current product.

It may well be the case that my mental models are getting in the way. Or do others run into this? I have been contemplating building a business around Alpha similar to the fair-sized (20+ person) one that I had based around Notes, but things like this give me pause.

Curious to hear if others have thoughts on this subject.

[ghammond]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

I am also pondering and somewhat confused about the need for multiple servers running to have more than one web site application running. My background is with asp and asp.net where I can run "sub-webs" under the root that all have their own URL but use the same IP address.
It seems I have also read somewhere recently that R11 was going to be able to run A5WAS under IIS but perhaps I only dreamed this or remember it incorrectly.

[Keith Hubert]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

We were told in London by Selwyn that V11 will not be ready to run under IIS. So it was only a dream.

[totallycovered]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

I will post this in a new thread, but just so you know:
We had an Alpha Five application server up and running for months, hosting our internal "workflow" system.

Yesterday at 3 pm, I uploaded a 2nd site to our server (a Dental Imaging system developed in Alpha) for testing online. It ATE Alpha Five Server alive: even after uninstalling and re-installing the Alpha 5 Server, removing and replacing the A5Webroot directories with multiple different backups, re-uploading our original site, uninstalling and reinstalling Access utilities (we use mdb databases) and rinsing and repeating for ten hours with two other experienced Microsoft Server Network Engineers, we can't even get our site back to running as it was yesterday. It chokes on any data ("Error opening Grid table/view: Database API specific error"). Strangely, even after uninstalling the server, removing the suggested registry settings, Program Files directory, etc, and reinstalling, the server still retains whatever is corrupting it (it even retains the custom port settings, etc, from the previous install).

So, long story short, at least if you're using MDB's, I recommend against uploading a 2nd site to your Alpha server (unless, maybe, you run multiple instances as recommended). Had no idea how dangerous it was, and now we'll probably need to format and reinstall Windows on the server to properly "flush out" the Alpha server software.

[Lenny Forziati]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

We were told in London by Selwyn that V11 will not be ready to run under IIS. So it was only a dream.

Selwyn said that IIS support is not planned to be included in V11 on day one, but will be made available in the V11 time frame as a separate update. What this means is that it is not a dream, but it is a distinct project so it will not hold up the release of V11.

[Lenny Forziati]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

So, long story short, at least if you're using MDB's, I recommend against uploading a 2nd site to your Alpha server (unless, maybe, you run multiple instances as recommended). Had no idea how dangerous it was, and now we'll probably need to format and reinstall Windows on the server to properly "flush out" the Alpha server software.

Many customers successfully run multiple applications using multiple instances.

Additionally, many customers successfully run multiple applications under a single instance. The caveat here is that sessions are not application specific.

[GGandhi]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

I've been struggling with trying to get a 2nd application running on an Alpha server - bjacobson

I was curious about what Lenny said - running two or more applications on a single instance of webserver. To test I created two websites, each with its own profile landing in web folders separately. such as a5Webroot\application1, a5dataroot\application1. a5webroot\application2, a5dataroot\application2. when I was in the webcontrol panel of application1 I published to the proper webroot& dataroot using the profile. then closed the database opened to the second database did the same. While the application server is running(green light on) I went to I.E and brought the application1 website index file. then on the second tab I brought the second application web site index file. They both showed up nicely without any problem. So I guess it is true you can run two or more application on a single server. Lenny is right in what he said. One application using native mdb, the other using mysql back end.

Gandhi

[ghammond]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

Many customers successfully run multiple applications using multiple instances.

Additionally, many customers successfully run multiple applications under a single instance. The caveat here is that sessions are not application specific.

Help me out here, what do you mean by "The caveat here is that sessions are not application specific"?
Gene

[Lenny Forziati]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

Help me out here, what do you mean by "The caveat here is that sessions are not application specific"?
Gene

Let's say you have http://yourserver/app1 and http://yourserver/app2, which are two distinct applications. If a visitor goes to app 1 and something sets a session variable, and they then visit app2, the session variable will still exist. In most cases this should not present a problem, but if your two apps were to use variables by the same name and depend on them for something like controlling access, you could end up with unauthorized access.

[bea2701]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

Will that behavior change in V11 for session vars?.
thank you
Eric

[OfficePro]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

Let's say you have http://yourserver/app1 and http://yourserver/app2, which are two distinct applications. If a visitor goes to app 1 and something sets a session variable, and they then visit app2, the session variable will still exist. In most cases this should not present a problem, but if your two apps were to use variables by the same name and depend on them for something like controlling access, you could end up with unauthorized access.

So also the protected_ulink variable is affected? How to avoid this? I think this is a big problem.
Why not to append to every session variable the "app1" or "app2" prefix depending on app name?

Regards
Marco

[bea2701]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

Place it on the wishlist http://alphasoftware.ideascale.com/ maybe that helps

[TaiTai]

Re: Having to run separate servers for each application - anyone else find this unusu

Interesting concept. I had not thought of running two tabs on the same browser and trying to access the same server at the same time, so I tested it on my app.

Secnario 1:
I logged on to my test app from tab1. Then copied the URL (page for the menu) into tab2, changed the URL to point to production and the page displayed (i.e. I did not actually login). However, because I have every menu selection configured with the group security nothing appeared on the menu. When I logged out of tab2 it logged out my session on tab1, understandable.

Scenario 2:
I logged onto test in tab1. Separately logged into Production in tab2. Due to my logic, the session variables were updated which means any functions I now call in tab 1 would use incorrect values. Because I have structured my security such that the menu passes the Client IDs to each function called this does not cause a security problem as the initial client_id was loaded into tab1 at first run time.

Scenario 3:
I logged onto test tab1 as one user. Production tab 2 as another user. Both menus were displayed as I expected. Each user was shown the correct information.

SO, I do not have a major problem. My menu security structure seemed to protect my data. However, I am going to look at logic on how the menu parameter passing concept could be used with an oninitialise event to check the values of what was passed via the menu with the current session variable and force an error.

Food for thought! (with some screen examples)
Scenario1_Tab1.JPG
Scenario1_Tab2.JPG
Scenario2_tab1.JPG
Scenario2_tab2.JPG