WmRoot Alias/Package redirection.......

, , ,
1

Hello wMPeople,

I tried to solve this issue with DNS Entry but that is not a viable solution for us.But here is the Question…

Is there any way we can mask the WmRoot package and be able to access the same wmroot package but with a different name?
http://hostname:port/WmHidden
and still see the same IS Console???
I know we cannot/should not mess with WmRoot but there must be a way Im not aware of…

or maybe we could redirect a console page request from a dummy package to WmRoot?

All inputs/suggestions would be monumentally appreciated
Thanks
Scoobydoo

2

Maybe we can back up a little bit here.

Why do you need to specify http://hostname:port/WmRoot explicitly? Is not http://hostname:port/ sufficient?

3

Rob,
We dont want to use http://hostname:port/WmRoot & http://hostname:port/…We just wanna use a different package and get the same functionality.
We have apache servers that would route the requests to different ISs’ based on the application name.
For instance the app is XYZ…we would use https://hostname:port/XYZ
thanks
scoobydoo

4

I wouldnt suggest this at all to be implemented in Prodcution!!!

Make a copy of WmRoot pkg; In this copy package, disable all the startup/shutdown services;

Depending on additional needs, you can strip many services in this new copy package.

You have what you want!!

HTH,
Saurabh

5

saurabhm ;
Thanks for the response
I tried to replicate WmRoot with a different name.
It wouldnt load the package @ startup.
But this is what i did.
I made my own package.
Copied all the dsp files in WmRoot/pub into testpackage/pub
and i was able to access the IS console.
Now i just wanna stop people from accessing the IS Console from WmRoot.
Is that bad to do in production?
All your inputs are monumentally appreciated
Scoobydoo!

6

Out of curiosity why do you want to “rename” WmRoot, which is what you’re effectively doing? This seems odd to me. What are you trying to prevent/protect/achieve? If we understand better what you’re trying to achieve, we may be able to suggest a solution.

7

Rob,
The reason why i wanna do that is so that we could access the IS console just by providing the browser with the application name. The apache server would also route the request to the right IS by using that new masked name.
We are trying to label our IS instances by the hostname:port# followed by the application name.We wanna implement one uniform pattern.We prefer this to be done on webMethods side.
Saurabhm/Eamon
I really apreciate all your input !
thanks
Scoobydoo

8

Let’s see if I understand your environment:

  • You have many different IS instances
  • Each instance hosts a different set of integrations
  • Apache is being used as a proxy to direct connections to specific IS instances

Question here: what URL is being used to connect to Apache? Is it the same for all “applications?” How does Apache differentiate the requests so that it knows the proper instance to pass the request to?

Correct me if I’m off base, but you’re looking for 1) virtual host names; and 2) URL translation.

What’s the plan for invoking services on each of these instances? The standard URL is http://hostname:port/invoke/folder.folder/service, where “invoke” is a required literal. How will Apache deal with that?

This seems to me that you may be trying to apply “application server” approaches (e.g. WebLogic has a notion of an explicit app accessed using an URL of the form http://host:port/myapp/somefile.jsp where “myapp” is a required part of the name so that WLS knows what set of “stuff” to run) to something that is not an application server. Integration Server is not an app server like WLS or WebSphere. It doesn’t do things the same way those environments do, though it looks similar.

Masking or “front-ending” WmRoot is going to give you trouble.

Given the information we’ve shared thus far, if you need to segregate traffic using logical application names, then I’d suggest using a scheme of logical hostnames. That would let you have load-balanced clusters per “application” and would permit accessing WmRoot properly in each of those environments.

Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood and am completely off-base here.

9

Rob,
you are right about the environment
#1.we have many different IS instances.
#2.Each instance hosts a different set of integrations
#3.Apache is being used as a proxy to direct connections to specific IS instances.

Answer:Im not concerned abbout the url thats bring used to connect to Apache.
I wanna streamline/patternize/mask the url used by apache to connect/route to webMethods.And i wanna do it from webMethods side.
Yes rob,
i guess u could say Virtual Host name is involved in that.
And i dont think URL translation is required since this is an internal thing.
And i dont want to invoke any services. I just want to see the admin console.
You are right, Rob when you say Im trying to implement “application server” approaches .
Could u elaborate more on “Masking or “front-ending” WmRoot is going to give you trouble.”?
logical hostnames?..i dont think thats possible from webMethods side.But how would that make it easier for me?
Rob,you are on track!!!You know what im looking for
thanks for all the input guys…
scoobydoooooooo

10

I am not sure if i understood your requirement correctly, but i will put my 2 cents in anyway :slight_smile:

If all you want is to redirect from your package XYZ to WmRoot, you can put an index.html in the XYZs pub folder similar to that in packages\Default\pub\index.html

Or, if you want to completely mask WmRoot with no access to anyone, you can copy the whole WmRoots pub folder to XYZs pub folder(which you already seem to have done). To remove access to WmRoot, you can simply edit the .access file in packages\WmRoot\pub(which, ofcourse, still can be called messing with WmRoot)