Thanks Tim, That seems like the way to go. IT avoids us having to write our own protocols and everything and instead just code the logic for what action to take when a certain message is received.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Tim Watts <t...@cliftonfarm.org> wrote: > Any IPC that you have to write from scratch is going have a not > insignificant level of complexity whether it's raw sockets, pipes, http, > whatever. Since it sounds like you can't introduce any additional > software packages, you might want to consider using RMI (see the > java.rmi package). At least then, you're coding to an API instead of > having to invent message formats and protocols. > > > On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 10:16 -0400, Jason Ricles wrote: > > Yes we are trying to portable, well the socket is the last resort. We are > > trying to avoid it until now but will go that way if we have to if there > is > > no other way. Mostly due to the data coming in and out writing our own > > socket will be complex but doable. As far as messaging broker, they are > not > > approved for use on our system so thus can not be used. > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Tim Watts <t...@cliftonfarm.org> wrote: > > > > > On Linux/Unix you could use a FIFO (aka named pipe) and have each side > > > connect to it with a stream. But that's non-portable and probably not > > > too elegant/robust. What's the problem with using a socket? Or better > > > yet, a message broker like ActiveMQ like someone else has already > > > suggested? > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 09:46 -0400, Jason Ricles wrote: > > > > Communicate means something happens that the daemon is monitoring, so > > > thus > > > > the daemon sends a message to the websocket server running on the > webapp, > > > > so that message can get relayed to the webpage from the server and > the > > > > daemon will also need to get messages from the webapp. It will then > be > > > two > > > > way and just regular messages. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:42 AM, chris derham <ch...@derham.me.uk> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 28 October 2014 11:06, Jason Ricles <jgr...@alum.lehigh.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > Ok so here is the problem I have been spinning my wheels on for > day > > > let > > > > > me > > > > > > just lay it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a daemon written in java running lets call it foo for > > > simpleness > > > > > on > > > > > > a linux machine that has the tomcat server running. On the tomcat > > > server > > > > > is > > > > > > a WAR file for a webapp called bar. In that webapp is a webpage > with > > > > > > JavaScript websocket communication that connects to a websocket > > > server > > > > > that > > > > > > is also a part of the WAR file. So I have a webpage and a > websocket > > > > > server > > > > > > communicating with each other. > > > > > > > > > > > > I want the foo daemon and the websocket server on bar (web > > > application) > > > > > to > > > > > > be able to communicate with each other. Is there any way outside > of > > > > > sockets > > > > > > to have foo and the websocket server on bar do this? > > > > > > > > > > Define communicate - what kind? One way, two way, what kind of > data, > > > > > frequency, size, type? > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
