PDA

View Full Version : My solution to differ multiApp License



Javier
10-Nov-2013, 04:33 AM
I was thinking that if we have a central WebApp for users, and other apps as bakground processes for the first one, these others don't need a MENU for select different views because are robots to process in background.

The fact of to don't need a MENU and are only a simple panel to show what is running or how in that moment, would be a good point to know if that Apps are part of a common comercial project, or have a different commercial destiny.

So easy like to create a superclass without MENU from the startup, and with only a forced panel or DBPanel.

If not, would be needed a WebApp unlimited for 1 + 1 Combo or VDF for unlimited Apps for 1 user. ( Only one administrator = the machine, would be the user )

Javier

Pepe
12-Nov-2013, 10:40 AM
What Javier is trying to say is just an idea of how the concept of “Application” on a Dataflex Web Server per application licensing model could be applied.

First the concept:
If an application has no user interface (in VDF world an application launched as a service) then, perhaps DAWW could consider it as if it wasn’t a Web App at all. Why such a thing? Well if you do have an application with user interface and some of your features are done on the background, such as file transfer or “house cleaning” by say two further Dataflex (non-user interface) applications why should it be considered your application model as 3 applications and thus pay for such licenses when it is really one?

Second, how that could be coped:
There is what he was mentioning as a superclass or any other meanings that DAWW could implement to verify that they really are non-user interface applications and so could be exempted of counting as Dataflex WebApps.

I hope this would help to clarify what he was trying to express

Regards

Pepe

Stephen W. Meeley
12-Nov-2013, 10:51 AM
Thanks for the clarification.

I thought the options in this case were covered pretty well in another thread, weren't they? The context was "background processes" but that's really just another way of saying "no user interface". These could be done as scheduled "Windows" applications (needing one Windows user added to the client), or separate Web applications (requiring another web application on the server) or simply as exposed processes in the same "host" web app (requiring nothing additional) - each of those options having their own unique pros and cons.

Javier
14-Nov-2013, 10:20 AM
Yes, it is clear. 10 customers = 20 licenses.

Javier

Stephen W. Meeley
14-Nov-2013, 11:28 AM
That depends on which option is best for the scenario. If we assume the starting point is one application per customer with your 10 customer example the various options could be:

Web server = 10 applications + 1 additional "windows" client (to run a single background process that has no user interface and handles all customers)
Web server = 10 applications (if the web application has the background processes compiled into the same single application)
Web server = 10 applications + 1 application (to host a single web application with no user interface for the background processes for all customers)
Web server = 10 applications + 10 applications (to host a web application with no user interface for the background processes dedicated to each particular customer)

There are all kinds of variables that will impact which of the above might be best - what these "background" processes do, how often then run, how long they take to run, the overall load on the web server, how important scalability is, how easy (or difficult) it is to have a single program (Windows or Web) that can handle multiple customers, etc. etc.

Stephen W. Meeley
15-Nov-2013, 10:00 PM
Javier,

I was thinking about this more this evening and I realized that I was responding to your question solely from the perspective of Web Application licensing. There is actually another way to approach this - with Web Client licensing instead of Web Application licensing. If you license using Web Clients it doesn't matter how many "applications" each of those licensed users access - with or without user interfaces. If there are a mix of Web and Windows applications you can use the Combo Client licensing. I'm not sure if this would fit your scenario any better but I certainly didn't want to overlook it as an option.

If you are not familiar with the client licensing options you can read more about them here...

http://www.visualdataflex.com/learn-more.asp?pageid=808

Javier
18-Nov-2013, 12:40 PM
Thank you Stephen. We will have to sudy it in deep.

There is not a wave claiming for the change and in a common direction. Not all the customers expect the same sollution. Part of them expect the WebApp only as a "virtual office" for THEIR CLIENTS with low content and only as an automated extension of their Windows ERP. Others probably will want a full Intranet WebERP, and other both.

We have to interpret this without clear intentions and translate it into types of licenses and putting all this easy.... while they mantain their current Windows licenses for an indeterminate time until we solve all directions.

Javier

FrankValcarcel
25-Apr-2014, 02:12 PM
And just to clarify. If we have a web application with a user interface, which also has web services compiled in that do completely different stuff, it still counts as one application. ie. One WebApp.exe running = 1 application regardless of what it can do.

Stephen W. Meeley
25-Apr-2014, 02:54 PM
That depends greatly on the definition of "completely different stuff".

If that stuff is made up of services in support of the same application (underlying data structures and business rules) it'd be fine. If those services have absolutely nothing to do with the same application (using different underlying data structures and business rules) not so fine.