RE: [flexcoders] Questions about RTMP ports and channel definitions

[Stacy Young]

To answer # 1: trying to have two instances of FDS bind to the same port is the same as trying to run two web servers on the same machine and bind them both to port 80. It’s not a matter of message routing …the port is already in use so the second instance will fail since it can not bind to that same port number on startup.   -Stace   From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas McCarroll Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 1:44 PM To: flexcoders post Subject: [flexcoders] Questions about RTMP ports and channel definitions   Hi All, I recently wrote a post on my blog <http://www.brightworks.com/flex_ability/?p=17> about an error I was encountering. A kind commenter explained that my problem was caused by the fact that I had two different webApps running that were both configured - in their services-config.xml files - so that their RTMP channels used the same port. I want to revise my post to explain this, but want to make sure that I understand how things work first. So I'd welcome any feedback on the following explanations & questions: 1. Obviously it is bad to have two different webApps use the same RTMP port. I assume that webApps can't share the same port because, well, how would they know which webApp a particular message is being sent to? I suppose that this could be resolved by giving different destination names to the different webApp's RTMP destinations, but I can imagine how this approach could create problems. Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone here can explain the crux of the problem more clearly or succinctly... 2. I assume that configuring a channel with a specific port number (e.g. uri="rtmp://{server.name}:2038") does two things: a. It tells the FDS server-side code to listen to that port for that channel. b. It tells clients to connect to that port if they're using that channel. I assume that there's some mechanism whereby clients say, "hey webApp, what port do I use for this RTMP channel?" Am I understanding correctly here? 3. I'm guessing that sharing ports between webApps isn't a problem for HTTP and AMF channels. The reason I think this is that they are configured in channel definitions with URIs like this: uri="http://{server.name}:{server.port}/{context.root}/messagebroker/amfpolling ... as opposed to specifying a specific port, as we do in RTMP channel defs. Do I understand this correctly? 4. I'm guessing that the reason why this isn't a problem is that they don't use a sustained connection, as RTMP channels do. Is this correct? Thanks in advance for any input! :-) Douglas McCarroll AVIS IMPORTANT WARNING Ce message électronique et ses pièces jointes peuvent contenir des renseignements confidentiels, exclusifs ou légalement privilégiés destinés au seul usage du destinataire visé. L'expéditeur original ne renonce à aucun privilège ou à aucun autre droit si le présent message a été transmis involontairement ou s'il est retransmis sans son autorisation. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé du présent message ou si vous l'avez reçu par erreur, veuillez cesser immédiatement de le lire et le supprimer, ainsi que toutes ses pièces jointes, de votre système. La lecture, la distribution, la copie ou tout autre usage du présent message ou de ses pièces jointes par des personnes autres que le destinataire visé ne sont pas autorisés et pourraient être illégaux. Si vous avez reçu ce courrier électronique par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur. This electronic message and its attachments may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information, which is solely for the use of the intended recipient. No privilege or other rights are waived by any unintended transmission or unauthorized retransmission of this message. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if you have received it in error, you should immediately stop reading this message and delete it and all attachments from your system. The reading, distribution, copying or other use of this message or its attachments by unintended recipients is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com SPONSORED LINKS Software development tool Software development Software development services Home design software Software development company Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___