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]

Similar Messages

How to separate application module instance per user session?

Hi.
How do you separate application module instances per session or per user? I am creating a web application and has created a simple filter that implements Filter.
Thanks in advance.

Hi Frank. Thank you for the reply.
I tried using two browsers. The behavior of each page is very much different when being opened individually. Its like the two pages is sharing the same iterator / data and / or entity object. These two pages were opened to see if one is dependent upon the other. But when I test the same scenario on a different computer, everything works out fine.
Is there a way for me to verify if the sessions are different? and if they are different, is there a way to verify if the application module created a new instance for the other session?

How can I restrict one stream per user?

Hello!
I have made a mp3-streamer in flash. Users must log on to a
web page in order to access my player. If one user logs in once
it's all OK. The problem occurs if a user "share" his account with
multiple others and log in twice (or n-times). Now I have no
control on how many users that can log onto the system.
I'm looking for a solution where for instance the first one
who logs in gets to play the stream, and all others that log into
the same account are refused access to streaming. I'm not a
back-end programmer, so I hope this is something that can be solved
using FMS. Is there a known working solution to this problem or
some features on FMS that can lock streaming to the first user.
I've tried sending in the username, however if user#1 stops
the stream user #2 is able to take over the stream, so now user # 1
is refused the stream.
Trond

FMS does support connections to web services, and can make
http requests in a number of ways. I like to use remoting, but you
can also use loadVars, XML or an XML Socket connection. The best
approach will be dictated by the services you need to connect to.
For remoting, you want to look into netservices.asc , and you can
find some examples/tutorials at flash-db.com
About your scenario
1) Player sends a ticket (SHA or something)
The client (.swf would pass this data to FMS in the
netconnection.connect() argument.
2)FMS runs a remote call and verifies the ticket <-This is
the problem
No problem here. All you need to do is have your FMS app make
the request of the authentication server (based on the token value
provided in the client's connect request) before accepting the
connection. See the docs for application.onConnect()
3a) User already online? (Hmm forgot to turn off your player?)
..disconnect connection and give new connection to same user
Here's the part you'll need some new structure for. You're
going to need to be able to reference other clients that are logged
in under the username of the new client. When a client connects, a
corresponding client is stored in the application's clients[]
array, but it's up to you to add your own variables to each client
object so you have something to reference them by in your
functions. The really cool thing is, once you have a means of
picking the client out of the list, FMS auto-resolves to the client
itself, and you can target the client with other functions.
Take this server side code for example
application.onConnect = function (clientObj, userName){ //
Username was passed in the client connect() argument
clientObj.userName = userName
Now the username is a variable in the client object. To find
a client with a specific user name, you just need to loop through
the application.clients array and look for a match:
function checkForUsername(name){
for (x = 0; x < application.clients.length; x++){
if (application.clients[x] .userName== name){
// match found, do something about it. If we want to dump the
old user, we might do this
application.disconnect(application.clients[x]);
Of course, this is only one approach, but it's about the most
straighforward method I can think of.
In the case of your app, I suggest you send two values to the
FMS app in the client connect() argument... an SHA token, and the
username. You'll use the username for checking user conflicts, and
the SHA to verify the session (this should be a one time thing...
the token expires after a single use)
Hope it helps.

Limite RemoteApp to one instance per user

Hello everyone,
A customer asked us to make an (unfinished) application available to them. Since this application is unfinished we want to make sure that only one person at a time is using it and that under no circumstances the customer can copy the application.
RemoteApp seems perfect for this, however standard it allows users to open the same application as much as they like with the same credentials.
Is there a way to limit the RemoteApp applications to one per user session?

Hi,
Another idea is to create an additional user account and limit only this account can use this RemoteApp.
Thanks.
Jeremy Wu
TechNet Community Support

ASA5515X - WSE,AVC and IPS - Application block per user

Can I enable web applicaction blocking based on user or group of users with WSE license or do I need another type of license.?
Thanks,
Ivan

WSE is always packaged, at a minimum with AVC. that combination on an ASA is all the licensing you need to block web applications per user. You will of course need to implement a scheme to identify your users in order to use their identity in a policy. That can be via local database (seldom used as it doesn't scale well) or via integration with your Microsoft AD infrastructure (via active authentication or optionally using the free Context Directory Agent (CDA) server running on a VM in your environment) or via something like the Identity Services Engine (ISE - a licensed product).

One Application Module Instance Per User

Hi, I am using JDeveloper 11.1.1.2 with ADF BC.
I have an application with a single root application module. I have my JDBC data source set up to enable identity based connection pooling so that a database connection is created with the current user's credentials.
Basically, I would like an application module pool such that a single application module instance exists for each user in the system. If a user logs into the system, a new app module should be instantiated for him (tied to his db credentials). If the user makes a new request and his app module has been removed from the pool for inactivity, a new app module should be instantiated even if others already exist in the pool for other users. If the user is already logged into the system and tries to login again in another browser window, I would like to check if an app module already exists in the pool for the user and re-use that one instead of instantiating a new one.
I don't want to set jbo.doconnectionpooling=true because I want the app module instance to keep its cached data.
Is this possible? If so, how could I configure the application module to make this work?

Hi Frank. Thank you for the reply.
I tried using two browsers. The behavior of each page is very much different when being opened individually. Its like the two pages is sharing the same iterator / data and / or entity object. These two pages were opened to see if one is dependent upon the other. But when I test the same scenario on a different computer, everything works out fine.
Is there a way for me to verify if the sessions are different? and if they are different, is there a way to verify if the application module created a new instance for the other session?

Restrict access to buttons, regions, etc. on a per user basis?

My application restricts access to buttons, regions, etc. on a per user basis.
Here is my application logic...
1. A User can only edit items they own.
2. A Super-User can edit all items
So, when a user logs in, I use a post-authentication process to set the user ID to an application level item.
Now, for example, to have an edit button display on a page, I need to check the item's owner ID against the application level user ID...and check to see if this user is on the Super User list via a query.(which could be set to another application level item upon login...I guess)
Question...What is the best way to do this? Conditional display? Authorization scheme?
Would something like the following work for a Conditional Display?
Condition: SQL Expression
&USER_ID.=&P6_ITEM_OWNER_ID. OR USER_ID in (select USER_ID from table where USER_ID=&USER_ID.)
How would I do this with an Authorization Scheme? (I like the idea of updating the logic in single location...but I'm not sure if it is possible because I have to check PX_OWNER_ID would be different on each page.)

Hi Denes,
Thanks for your code which allows user to edit (if authorized) and view (if not).
But some how - I do not get the image to show up - instead it show a small underline.
From SQL point of view - here is what I get - when i run the sql
'<img src="/i/ed-item.gif">',2,CR TEST,,,,dune2.cit.cornell.edu,CRDMTEST.CIT.CORNELL.EDU,PSPROD,,,CRDMTEST
Here is my wrap_image function
create or replace function wrap_image(p_user_name in varchar2,p_dm_name_id in number)
return varchar2 IS
v boolean := False;
ret_val varchar2(1000);
begin
dbms_output.put_line('user='||p_user_name);
dbms_output.put_line('dm_name='||p_dm_name_id);
-- Check authorization if the user is super user - return true, else if he has edit priv on dm_name_id - return true - else false
v:=ACL_DMTOOLS_DM_PRIV(p_user_name,p_dm_name_id);
if v then
ret_val := '<img src="/i/ed-item.gif">';
ret_val := ''''||ret_val||'''';
dbms_output.put_line('TRUE');
else
ret_val := '';
dbms_output.put_line('FALSE');
end if;
return ret_val;
end;
Thanks for your great educational site.
Regards
atul

Restrict accounts for an Application Instance

Hi Experts,
How can we restrict the number of Application Instance accounts in OIM that can be provisioned to a single user?
Regards,
Subin

Earlier we were having Allow Multiple checkbox on Resource Object but need to check for Application Instance.
One way is to achieve the same through validation handler

How to get the list of application instance assigned to user

Hi,
I need to run the query in BI publisher to get the list of all the application instance assigned to a user in OIM 11g R2.
Please let me know how to get this data. Also please let me know what is the table to see the list of application instance in OIM.
Thanks

Got this working..
The table is APP_Instance to get the details of Application Instance present in OIM.

Is there any other way to achieve per user call forward restriction other than to create multiple voice policies?

Hello,
We mentioned the environment details below:
Environment
In our PBX environment, currently a user can forward calls to any local (within a region) internal extension. But for external PSTN call forwarding, a user needs to send a request and be approved by their manager. And the forwarding restriction
is applied such that user is only allowed to forward to that particular PSTN number - to prevent toll fraud.
Moving forward to Lync, using voice policy's call forwarding and simultaneous ring PSTN usages, I can set it to allow forward and simultaneous ring to custom PSTN usage and a custom route that will only send calls to these pre-approved
external numbers.
Outcome
But in such a scenario,
sSince all the custom external allowed numbers will have to be put into a single Route match table, User A will be able to successfully
set up call forward to User B's number. (if they come to know about it somehow, that is)
rü
Route matching list will be very long due to the number of users per hubsite that has call forwarding enabled.
Questions
Is there any other way to achieve per user call forward restriction other than to create multiple voice policies ? MSPL may be ?
2. Is there a limit in the number of entries you can have on the Route pattern matching regex expression ?
Please advise. MANY THANKS.

1) I think multiple policies may be your best bet, though it's not a fun one to manage, I agree. MSPL could do it, but it would be more complex to maintain in the end. Even gateways have limitations on routes.
2) I'm not aware of a limit, though I'm not saying there's isn't one. But if you hit it, you could move to a second usage/route combo.
I'd suggest building out some PowerShell usage/route creation/organization script for this so it's not something that would need to be maintained within the GUI.
Please remember, if you see a post that helped you please click "Vote As Helpful" and if it answered your question please click "Mark As Answer".
SWC Unified Communications
This forum post is based upon my personal experience and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or view of Microsoft, its employees, or other MVPs.

An OS-Intergrated place to store per-user application configuration files.

A Chairde,
I'm developing an application that could be deployed on multiple platforms. I'm looking for a location to store per-user configuration files in a OS-integrated way.
I use a utility class to determine the OS of the users machine. I know from experience that Windows NT5+ likes to store per-user settings/configurations in the %APPDATA% path (which is usually C:\Users\<username>\Appdata\Roaming\<vendor>\<software> etc.) I'm using a call to the environment labels to determine it's location.
I'm a linux user myself, so I'm aware that most UNIX based Operating Systems like to store personal configurations in hidden folders in the user's home directory (ex /home/<username>/.<application> etc.), Obviously, I'm using a call to the system property user.home to determine that location.
My Question is in relation to Mac OS and Mac OS X, where would it be a safe location to store per-user configurations? I know OS X is BSD/UNIX based so is it safe to assume to store them as a hidden subfolder of the user.home directory? What about Mac OS classic? Where are per-user settings stored, or is it like Windows 9x and NT4 and lacks proper multi-user setups (although NT4 is somewhat more prepared then 9x) ?
It would be much appreciated if anybody has any ideas.
Is Mise,
Seán Mac Aodha
PS. I'm not using Javas Property files etc. I've rolled my own exchangeable format for storing key,value pairs.

I've used databases in the past to store local files but clients have sometimes run into trouble when the database daemon goes down or doesnt start-up normally because of a "improper" shutdown etc.
In my own implementation of "Settings Files" i have serialized hashtables marked with appropriate metadata stored to the users "application data", a backup or original copy of those settings in the common directory shared by my application framework and then in a networked enviroment, the Settings can be hosted on a database server, so the user can travel between client machines and keep their settings (and files) with them.
I have, with a bit of googling, come across the most obvious page i should have looked at in regards to Apple Mac OS X
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/BPFileSystem/Articles/WhereToPutFiles.html
According to Apple's guidlines, the most suitable place to store User configuration files is in the ~/Library/Application Support/<Application Name> directory.
and for System-wide configuration files, /Library/Application Support/<Application Name> rather then storing them with the application in the /Applications directory.

Single Database Session Per User in ADF/BC Application

Hi, I am using ADF with BC (JDeveloper 11.1.1.1). My application contains multiple application modules, each connected to the same JDBC data source. On the app server, I have configured the data source to use Identity Based Connection Pooling.
My current configuration is resulting in numerous database sessions for each user. I have a requirement to use only a single database session per user HTTP session. Is there any way to configure the application modules to achieve this?
Thanks,
Brad

Hi,
use a single root Am module and make sure the others are used as nested modules. This will create a single connection
Frank

OIM11gR2 - How can I list users with an SAP User Application Instance?

Hello,
This is a feature I was used to in OIM9.
Except that in OIM9 the model was a bit different, we had no application instance. We referred to it as a Resource.
Anyway, as an Identity Manager administrator, I wanted to quickly find a user with an specific Resource, e.g. SAP User.
I went to Resources, choose the resource I'm interested in finding the users, then from there I could filter them by Resource Status, either Provisioned, Provisioning, Revoked, Disabled, etc.
Now in OIM11gR2 I can't find an equivalent for this.
From /sysadmin I cant list users from the Application Instances
From /identity I cant search users with a given Application Instance.
Did I miss something? or this cannot be done in OIM11R2.
(Alternatively, I opening SQL Developer and listing the UD_SAP table, but this is obviously not acceptable)
Thanks for an insight.
Adr

this is a problem of realm definition.check the config.xml, you've got an invalid realm declared.

R12 Restrict Parallel Concurrent Requests Per User to a Limit.

Hi everyone,
Is it possible to restrict parallel concurrent requests per user to a limit.
e.g. UserA sending concurrent requests to submit 15 heavy reports one after another. After 2 minutes he feels free. Now 15 reports running in parallel are heavy enough to take system's performance down. Is there a way to restricting parallal reports by a single user to 5.
Waitning........
Regrads,
M. Farooq Khan.

Hi,
Please check the profile optiion
Concurrent:Active Request Limit
Thanks,

Is the CQ5 lisense per instance or per user on the instance?

Is the CQ5 lisense per instance or per user on the instance?

Please ask your Adobe sales rep for licensing models available to you. There is no general answer to this question.
Jörg

Restrict application instances per user?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for