Providing a unique RemoteObject per user

I'm trying to setup a simple multi-user client server in BlazeDS and provide each Flex client its own unique RemoteObject.
I set up the Java object in remoting-config.xml. But the object is only being created once and every user afterwords has access to the same object. I have to restart Catalina if I want a new user. What is the right/simplest way of providing each user access to thier own object?

I don't think you can create remote objects on a per user basis. However you could create user-specific objects from within your remote object methods and store them between requests on the FlexSession (which is roughly equivalent to an HttpSession object in J2EE).

Similar Messages

Does the Airport extreme provide any sort of usage reporting? Either per user or aggregate usage of the broadband port

Does the Airport extreme provide any sort of usage reporting? Either per user or aggregate usage of the broadband port

No. You may be able to retrieve that information from your ISP.

Amount of Resources CPU and Memory per user

Hi,
We are looking to deploy a Line of Business Application via RemoteApp and a custom template. The application requires a significant amount of RAM and CPU, can someone tell me who much RAM and CPUs are allocated per session \ user? I would expect
that we would use the Standard tier if any difference to resources available.
Thanks
Giles

Hi James,
Currently there is no way to configure resources other than selecting either Basic or Standard. If you would like a lower per-VM user density (and thus higher resources for each user) what you can do is create more collections, and only assign
a small number of users to each.
For example, say you only wanted to have a maximum of 4 users on each VM, providing typically at least 1 vCPU per user. In this case you would create collections with the Basic plan, each linked
to the same template image, and only assign a maximum of 4 user accounts on the user access tab of each. Assuming each user uses 80+ hours a month, the total (before discounts) cost for each collection would be $228/month, making each user
cost about $57/month, slightly less than equivalent cost under Standard plan pricing if you factor in resources per user.
You probably already know this, but I will explain how scaling works normally for others that may read this. Azure RemoteApp will automatically create more VMs for each collection as needed to handle user load (Scale-Out) and shut down VMs when the
user load is reduced (Scale-In). The key thing that affects this scaling mechanism is the maximum concurrent users allowed on each VM, which for Standard is 10.
In your case you are asking if you can have more resources per user, hence my instructions above for creating multiple collections and limiting the number of assigned users to less than 10 each.
Depending on your unique needs it may make more sense to create a custom RDS deployment on Azure IaaS VMs. In this case you could control the size/type of VM used, user density, etc. Downside is you have to set up and manage more
RDS components than you do if you use Azure RemoteApp.
-TP

SAP R/3 : Indirect Role assignments - Is position unique to every user?

Hi.
While am exploring /learning SAP R/3 roles and auth, I would appreciate if I could get clarity on the following :
This link on SDN on Indirect role assignments are very informative.
http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/index?rid=/library/uuid/f03e6f6c-8c16-2a10-1581-ed8812e2effe
This link is also more explanatory : http://my.affinitext.com/public/book/5442/-1/1423831
So if my understanding is correct, it is better to assign roles - indirectly by position, so that if an employee's position changes, his role can be removed, based on position again ??? And somewhere we are linking with infotype 105.
My only doubt is : if we are going to assign roles by position and remove the roles by position, so that as the position of an employee changes, the previous roles become null and void and new roles can be assigned as per new position.
So would like to know :
as to whether this position number which we see from PA20, is unique to every user on the system ?
So that, if there is a need to remove a role based on postion, we could remove the role from PO13;
BY doing that, then will it not affect other users ?
Can somebody help me understand this.
Because if i want to see the effect immediately, if i go to PFUD and put the role name and say execute, i see that the role which was removed from PO13 is gone immediately from the user.
Many thanks
Indu
Edited by: Indumathy Narayanan on Nov 22, 2011 9:25 AM

GOT IT THANKS.
Hi Prashant.
Good morning and wishes.
Can you please help me understand this.
I understand from HR person that position is uniquely defined (from hire to retire)
and roles are generally given based on position.
However, I see a person : whose roles have been assigned as per position all these years.
He had 2 roles in project A. He now moved into a different project B.
But. when i check, i still see the roles - reflecting on SU01 & well as in the tab of user of the role X under pfcg.
BUT when i check PO13 - and put the position / relationship and say overview.
I dont see the roles at all there.
Why this is so. Why the discrepancy on different screens.
Also How can I get a confirmation that - these roles are actually removed and is not there for the user.
Rather.
How could the removal of roles based on position become completely effective on the system.
So that all screens display the same information.
Also would like to know - whether it is ok to remove the role expiry date directly from PFCG/ROLE Display/user tab/select user/
and then make the role invalid or expired / or extend the expiry.
Many thanks.
Indu
Edited by: Indumathy Narayanan on Dec 7, 2011 12:09 PM
Edited by: Indumathy Narayanan on Dec 7, 2011 1:42 PM
Edited by: Indumathy Narayanan on Dec 7, 2011 5:17 PM

Installed the RDS 2012 Server License per user CAL (5pcs) after not allow over two users remote desktop connection problem

I have successfully to installed the RDS 2012 Server R2 per user CAL (5pcs) Open License after is found not allow over two users to remote desktop connection on this Server problem, I try to uninstall the license and then (internet on-line & telephone
call Microsoft Activate Center get the activate key) to reinstall is still same of the result on below problem.
Select a user disconnect so that you can sign in.
There are too many users signed in
User1 Active
User2 Active
() Force disconnect of the user

Hi,
In addition you can also refer following article for RDL configuration.
RD Licensing Configuration on Windows Server 2012
http://blogs.technet.com/b/askperf/archive/2013/09/20/rd-licensing-configuration-on-windows-server-2012.aspx
Hope it helps!
Thanks.
Dharmesh Solanki
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact [email protected]

Payment Distribution to Artists by per user plays, rather than total plays

Hello!
I just had a thought about how payment is distributed to artists that I wanted to see if anyone might have some thoughts on. Spotify still does come under criticism on occasion for artist payment distribution - I've seen a couple of instances of people citing iTunes as providing more monetary compensation to artists since it is per download, rather than per play, among other things. This seems to be especially true for independent artists, and artists who are generally less well-known.
I was wondering if Spotify has ever considered doing payment distributions using the
sum[ (total artist streams per user) / (total streams per user) ] across all users
ratio for payment calculation, rather than the currently used
(total artist streams across Spotify) / (total streams across Spotify)
approach, i.e. calculating the artists' play ratio by user, rather than in one giant pool. If you have considered this, I would love to hear why the current payment implementation was chosen rather than a per user method, such as the one listed above. But...
If a per user method has not been considered by Spotify previously, I think it would be nice - while I'm not an analyst myself, I imagine that it could lead to more revenue for independent artists, and maybe even less famous artists that are still beholden to rights owners for distribution of payment. I think it would do this because it could account for differences in number of plays per user - rather than users who tend to play more music over the course of a month contributing more all artists' payout, each user has an equal voice in how money gets distributed to artists.
I understand that such a switch would be difficult, and possibly insurmountable in the instance of free users - so, I am positing this as an idea not for all users, but for Premium users only. With Premium, it is a feasible goal, since you have a finite number of plays, and a finite amount of money coming directly from that user, and do not have to worry about trying to calculate differences in advertisement impact for different users. Doing that ratio calculation would be relatively straightforward of a switch computationally (though quite a large change in the system nonetheless, of course).
I think this type of change would empower both users and artists to use Spotify more. Firstly, it would empower artists to allow Spotify to play their music because the metrics they would get per month would be more reflective of the size of their fan base, and how much importance that fan base puts on the artists' music than current metrics.
Secondly, it would empower users more, which I think is especially important for users between 18-32 years of age. While I am not an expert on the subject, I often find that users in this age group (my age group) care a great deal about having control over where their money ends up, which in this case means knowing which rights holders and/or artists are getting the money they are spending. I know I do. Switching to this system, while still not addressing the injustices that are felt within the relationship between rights holders and artists by many, would still allow users to have more of a say in who gets their money than the current system. On top of that, it might be helpfult for Spotify itself - if using Premium is the only way for users to feel empowered by knowing how their money is distributed, it may encourage people in the free tier to upgrade to Premium in order to feel empowered.
Just a thought. I'd love to hear what you and others have to say about this idea.

@Merik thanks for the warm welcome, and for the quick, informative response!
I had the chance to take a look at that page you linked to before my original post, and saw that paragraph you quoted, as well as the bullet point about paid users having a higher "per stream" rate. I guess what I was more interested in (and perhaps this is not the right place to ask this question?) was if there was more of an in-depth "why" behind their decision (and thanks again for linking to it!) documented anywhere that I might be able to read more about. Maybe I was missing something on that page (and please let me know if so!), but the only "why" that I could find was a sentence in the paragraph you quote above:
"We believe, however, that our service and the lives of artists will both be best if the World’s music fans enjoy more music than ever before in a legal, paid manner".
While it's great to see their opinion, I was more curious about the line of reasoning behind that position is all. Because I do wonder whether empowering premium users to have more fine-grained control over how their money is allocated, such as by doing pay "per user", might lead to both more paid users and more revenue for independent and/or lesser-known artists - and if that's something that Spotify has researched already, I would love to hear more about the pros and cons behind such an approach!
Thanks!

Saving report per user

Hi All,
I have developed an interactive report. There is a save option, but when I click on that it says "This report will be saved for all users" How can I make the report save per user?
-Vatsa

1. Yes that user will need an account that way there is a unique user id associated with the IR report parameters.
2. The reason it is says that is because you picked save as default report for all users. That is the report everyone will initially see. After you have created a login for the user, log in as that user. Then modify the IR as needed. Lastly click the gear and then click save report. there will be a dropdown to choose to save as a named report. Choose that and then the report will be saved onto a second tab viewable ONLY BY THAT USER.
Please let me know if you need anymore help.
-Ghoulies

[Forum FAQ] Troubleshoot the error "The Remote Desktop Session Host server is in Per User licensing mode and No Redirector Mode"

Symptom
RD License server is a key component of RDS. It licenses users to access RDS servers.
After purchase the required RDS CALs, we need to activate the RDS License server and install the purchased RDS CALs. However, during the installation or after installation, we may face errors
about RDS License.
In most cases, the following error may occur.
Error:
The Remote Desktop Session Host server is in Per User licensing mode and No Redirector Mode, but license server "Server name" does not have any installed licenses with the following
attributes:
Product version: Windows Server 2012
Licensing mode: Per User
License type: RDS CALs
Troubleshooting
1. Check whether the RD License Configuration is configured properly and there are no Warnings in the Event.
2. The License Server should be part of 'RD Server License' group in Active Directory Domain Services.
3. Check if the Licensing Mode is correct.
- To change the Licensing Mode we can use RD Licensing diagnose, PowerShell cmdlet and Group Policy.
Via PowerShell cmdlet:
To change the licensing mode on RDSH/RDVH:
$obj = get-wmiobject -namespace "Root/CIMV2/TerminalServices" Win32_TerminalServiceSetting
$obj.ChangeMode(value)
# Value can be 2 - per Device, 4 - Per user
Via Group Policy
Path: Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Windows Components -> Remote Desktop Services -> Remote Desktop Session Host -> Licensing
Use the specified RD license servers = FQDN of server name
Set the Remote Desktop licensing mode =
Per User
However, if issue persists, please provide detailed information and post the question in the
Remote Desktop Services (Terminal Services) forum.
Please click to vote if the post helps you. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Hi Richard,
You need to uninstall Remote desktop session host feature. After removing it, you will default two connections which does not need to purchase RD CALs'.
Thanks,
Umesh.S.K

Change CAL to per user from per unit

Hello!
I bought per user CALS (has been verified) but I have been using per unit because the per user cal didn't update the license for the users. I don't understand why it works perfectly with per unit (group policy edited) but not per user? The system has been
online for one and half year now so it wasnt until know I noticed the problem because to many computers had been assigned a license and even when I revoke one of them I wont be able to connect another computer until december 10 so thats a big problem. I did
change to per user but it wont connect with the computer due to many licenses in use. Do I need to restart the server when I change to per user in group policy? And why is the cals working with per unit fine when I bought per user cal?
Regards

Hi,
>>don't understand why it works perfectly with per unit (group policy edited) but not per user?
Based on the description, I assume we are using group policy to manage Remote Desktop license mode. Here, please make sure that we have a sufficient number of RDS Per User CALs installed on the license server to provide an RDS Per
User CAL for each user that needs to connect to the RD Session Host server.
Besides, for this question is more related to RDS, in order to get professional help, it's recommended that we ask for suggestions in the following RDS forum.
Remote Desktop Services
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsserver/en-US/home?forum=winserverTS
In addition, regarding issuing RDS CALs, the following article can be referred to for more information.
Install and issue RDS CALs or TS CALs
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh553159(v=ws.10).aspx
Best regards,
Frank Shen

Limit bandwidth per user/computer using Catalyst 3560 switch

Hi -
Can someone help me getting started (if at all possible...) with enabling controll of used bandwidth at a "per-user"-level.
I wonder if it possible to do this dynamicly with respect to the overall demand from other users.
I've searching a lot, but I'm missing the terminology :)
Sincerly
Nicholas

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
To my knowledge, what you want to accomplish isn't possible on a 3560.
You can police at ingress, and if you use a policy map, you can police different "known" IPs.
What you could do, is police user ports ingress at some nomimal bandwidth, and if exceeded, mark the packets. Then on egress, you could direct those packets to an different egress queue with a lower bandwidth guarantee than the normal queue.

Limiting Bandwitdth per user with WLC

Hi,
Is there anyone who can provide a deeper explanation for "Per-User Bandwidth Contracts (k)" on the "Edit QoS Profiles" menu of a Wireless LAN Controller 4402? Does it limit each value to 0 to 60 Kbps as maximum ONLY, as indicated on the Help window?
I want to limit 512 Kbps per user (client attached to an AP) not for WLAN.
I read http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/hahcont/contc.htm#wp1041926 but it is not sufficient.
I know I can do it with 3rd party equipments, but it is possible only with APs (1010, LAP1231), Cisco switches and WLC 4402?
JVC

Yes I think your assumption is correct. "Per-User Bandwidth Contracts (k)" limits each value at the maximum. This I think I have read in a document stating this information.

Restrict application instances per user?

We have a new ERP application. As with most enterprise software, it has a restrictive license on concurrent uses. It even counts multiple instances from the same user as multiple uses of its license.
The application runs from a Windows 2012 R2 server, as a RemoteApp.
Is there a way to restrict it so that each user may only run a single instance of the application?

Hi Itwally1,
All RemoteApp programs on the same server for the same user will run in the same session.
There seems to be no built-in method to limit a RemoteApp to a single instance per user session. Please refer to following threads and check if can help you.
Restrict a published RemoteApp to a single instance per user
Limite RemoteApp to one instance per user
If anything I misunderstand or any update, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Best regards,
Justin Gu
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact [email protected]

Maximum number of email addresses per user

I have a need to create a single mailbox with a large number of alias email addresses. I cannot find documentation on the maximum number of SMTP addresses that can be associated with a single user. Can someone point me in the right direction. Many thanks
in advance!
David

Hi David,
I've never heard of any restrictions about this, however, base on my search, I find a similar thread mentioned this question for your reference:
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/office/en-US/2c167213-731d-439f-855e-2dcb1ffd1d31/maximum-number-of-email-addresses-per-user-exchange-2010-sp1?forum=exchangesvradminlegacy
One member said:
I could see one account with 1203 SMTP addresses. I cannot add more addresses, I get an error message when I try to add more. Maybe it is the limit. I´m still researching to be sure if it is a limit or not.The exchange is 2007.
Best regards,
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help, and unmark the answers if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact [email protected]
Niko Cheng
TechNet Community Support

Serious problem with TSCAL per user Licensing (Event 4105 on Licenseserver)

Hello,
i've got a problem with Terminalservice-Licensing: We migrated our AD from W2003 to W2008. At the same time, we updated our Terminalservice-Licenseserver to W2008 (Memberserver, no DC). We are using per-user TSCAL licensing. The problem is, that for (nearly) every user that logs on to a W2008 Terminalserver, an event 4105 is generated in the eventlog of the Licenseserver, that means that the licence server cannot update the ad user properties when he delivers the cals.
We have discovered that the terminalserver-licenceserver group is under the security properties of the user listed but has no rights. For new created users the rights "terminalserver-licenceserver read/write" are correctly set and for those users no event 4105 is generated. The problem is, that License-reporting (usage) is only working for those newly created accounts and not for old ones. Why doesn't the terminalserver-licenceserver group have the rights to modify the Terminalserver-AD attributes for older accounts (these accounts were created when the domain-level was W2003)??? Is there a workaround or hotfix from Microsoft to correct the securitysettings ??
Many thanks
Ralf

Hello Ralf,
Thanks for your post in our forum.
Based on my understanding on your post, you have met the following issue:
You have migrated the Active Directory domain from Windows Server 2003 to Windows Server 2008; You have also upgraded the Terminal Server License Server from Windows Server 2003 to Windows Server 2008. After that, when the existing terminal users access the Terminal Server, an Event ID 4105 is logged to claim that the License Server fails to update the AD user’s properties.
According to the analysis on the second paragraph of your post, I think it is a known issue caused by insufficient permissions of the migrated users created in Windows Server 2003 domain environment. As you’ve found, the permissions required are for the Terminal Services Licensing Servers
group:
· Read Terminal Server license server
· Write Terminal Server license server
To fix this issue, please give these two permissions to the existing users.
After that, please confirm if the License Usage Report is working for the old users.
For more information about Event ID 4105, please refer to:
Event ID 4105 — Terminal Services Per User Client Access License Tracking and Reporting
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc775179(WS.10).aspx
Please feel free to let me know if I can provide any further assistance. Thank you for your cooperation.
Lionel Chen
TechNet Subscriber Support in forum
If you have any feedback on our support, please contact [email protected]

3 installations per user-based license: HowTo?

Hello
We have a number of user-based licenses. License agreement states that I can have 3 installations per user, provided only one is utilised per time. Suits me fine, since we run a number of test systems (15) and have about 5 LV programmers ("a", "b", "c", "d", and "e") intermittently programming on these.
Now, however, I wonder how to set up the license manager.
Do I need to have 5 x 3 systems with Windows user accounts "a", "b", "c", "d",and "e" respectively?
Thank you for your help-
Michael

Hello
Sorry, I must have gotten mixwed up with the numbers: It's 5 named user licenses, indeed.
But to clarify, license agreement does say
--------------------- SNIP ---------------------
2.A: Named User/Computer Based License. If you have acquired a named user license, you must designate in
writing (through the NI registration process) one (1) of your employees to serve as the named user for the
license (the "Named User"). The SOFTWARE may be installed on up to three computers in a single
workplace of the designated Named User. Only the designated Named User, however, may use or
otherwise run the SOFTWARE, and the SOFTWARE may not be run concurrently (i.e., it may only be
launched on one computer at a time).
----------------- SNAP ----------------------
So my idea is that 5 employees with 5 named user volume licenses are licensed to 3 test stands each. Since those 5 are the only programmers around, none of them will use more than one license at a time, i.e. only 5 installations are being used. However, according to my understanding, there may be 15 machines with legal installations of LabVIEW on disc or registered to the NI-VLM, 10 dormant, 5 active.
And if this interpretation holds, my question is: How do I set up the test stand PCs and the licenses in the NILM.
Please pardon my persistence, but otherwise I'll be swapping licenses on an hourly basis ;-)
Michael

Providing a unique RemoteObject per user

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for