Geeks With Blogs

News Clicky Web Analytics

web stats View David Caddick ('s profile on LinkedIn

Search this Site!

Locations of visitors to this page
View My Stats eXTReMe Tracker
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. The opinions expressed within are my own and should not be attributed to any other Individual, Company or the one I work for. I just happen to be a classic techie who is passionate about getting things to work as they should do (and are sometimes advertised and marketed as being able to?) and when I can I drop notes here to help others falling in to the same traps that I have fallen in to. If this has helped then please pass it on - if you feel that I have commented in error or disagree then please feel free to discuss with me either publically or privately? Cheers, Dave
Thin Clients, VDI and Linux integration from the front lines.... Raw and sometimes unedited notes based on my experiences with VMware, Thin Clients, Linux etc.

So I had a bit of a challenge today, I needed to get WebSphere Studio Application Developer (WSAD 5.1.2) working correctly in a CPS 4.0 installation - took a little messing about, but here's the raw notes.


First tried setting Virtual IP for WSAPPDEV.EXE  - this was enabled with 30 IP's available. Checked via Event Log that IP's are being issued to Clients. Tried Setting Compatibility Flags for WSAPPDEV.EXE Decimal Value of 18 (Hex code of 18 and App Fails to start) just in case that might have resolved the issue.


Looking deeper in to the Application it would appear that it is JAVAW.EXE that finally runs up to 100Mb plus and it seems likely that this is actually "holding" or "hosting" the session information? So I have now modified the Compatibility Flags AND the Virtual IP to point at JavaW.


This proved to be complete waste of time, all setting were changed back to the original.


Now looking at reconfiguring the WebSphere Test Application Servers port address's to:

HTTP: - 9180

HTTPS:- 9543

SOAP Connector Port: - 8980

ORB Bootstrap Settings:- 2909


This then enabled us to run 2 concurrent sessions - As each user has to define their own *separate* Workspace when the Application launches this should be fine, especially as we have now been able to confirm that these Server Port assignments are saved in to the Users Workspace


Right click on the Server listed in the lower pane - and “Open” - this will open the Servers settings in the top windows as displayed in the screenshot below.  


To double-check that this is the case we switched the Workspaces we were starting with (keeping the AD User ID's the same) and checking the servers Port numbers once the system was brought up. By switching the Workspace you do effectively switch the Port assignments - proving that this info is indeed saved in to the Workspace.


So, no need for virtual IP, no need for AIE or Compatibility flags. Just a case of modifying the Port assignment for the Test Application Server in each users individual Workspace. Although we found that it was only necessary to change the 4 ports listed above, we have decided that it would be a Best Practice to change ALL Port Assignments for each user and increment by 100 from default for each user.


So what we are planning is:

UserA - 9180, 9543, 8980, 2909

UserB - 9280, 9643, 9080, 3009

UserC - 9380, 9743, 9180, 3109   etc.


This leaves the original port assignments free for Development use just in case.


As much as we have only needed to change the 4 ports to make it work we have decided to change ALL ports to ensure there should be no other problems going forward.


Hope this is of some help to others?




Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 6:50 PM Citrix , IT Management , Real Cool Stuff , Microsoft Tips , VMware and other Virtualization tools | Back to top

Comments on this post: Looks like it is possible to get WebSphere Application Developer to work with Citrix

# re: Looks like it is possible to get WebSphere Application Developer to work with Citrix
Requesting Gravatar...
Since you're already re-numbering the standard ports, why not make each user's ports assignments a contiguous block?

Http Https (B) (C)
UserA- 9180 9181 9183 9184
UserB- 9280 9281 9283 9284
UserC- 9380 9381 9383 9384

this would make your port assignment seem a lot less "random"

...just a suggestion.
Left by E on Mar 15, 2006 1:11 PM

# re: Looks like it is possible to get WebSphere Application Developer to work with Citrix
Requesting Gravatar...
That's not a bad idea at all, I guess I was just stuck in the rut of thinking that xxx80 is easy to remember as being the HTTP, and so on....
I must remember to think more outside the box!! Thanks
Left by Dave Caddick on Mar 15, 2006 7:31 PM

Your comment:
 (will show your gravatar)

Copyright © Dave Caddick | Powered by: