I have implemented a function from the client part that calls the following function in the bigbluebutton-apps participant service
public void modEndMeeting(String roomName){
roomsManager.removeRoom(roomName);
}
Which calls a function that does the following
Gson gson = new Gson();
messagingService.send(MessagingConstants.SYSTEM_CHANNEL, gson.toJson(map));
And on the bigbluebutton-web part the following code is ran
listener.userLeft(meetingId, internalUserId);
And all that code does is place the meeting on the garbage collection list and does not end it right away.
The correct way to do it is to call the function end defined in ApiController.groovy.
I can do that buy generating an HTTP request. and sending the correct parameter. But I do not want to follow that approach
Is there any way that i can connect or return an instance of from which i can call the function end defined in ApiController.groovy that has an instance of a class called meetingService that actually owns the meeting ?
I have tried to make meetingService a singleton but that did not work.
I have also made the list that owns in the meeting of meetingService static. That also did not work
Here is a brief structure of meetingService
private final ConcurrentMap<String, Meeting> meetings;
This is a list that houses the meetings
Any ideas or suggestions ??
And http request would be the only way to close a meeting from the APIcontroller.
An other way would be to expensive. And it would decreasing the timer from 60 000 to like 1000 in the ExpiredMeetingCleanupTimer.java class
Or you can place a listener in the Apicontroller.groovy and send a redis message.
The thing to do would be to mark the meeting as closed on the red5 part and kicking anyone trying to join it, until the web part does the trick and ends the meeting.
Related
I am trying to implement a pub/sub broker with ZeroMQ where it is possible to restrict clients from subscribing to prefixes they are not allowed to subscribe to. I found a tutorial that tries to achieve a similar thing using the ZMQ_XPUB_MANUAL option. With zeromq.js it is possible to set this option:
import * as zmq from "zeromq";
// ...
const socket = new zmq.XPublisher({ manual: true });
After setting this option I am able to receive the subscription messages by calling .receive() on this socket:
const [msg] = await socket.receive();
But I have no Idea how to accept this subscription. Usally this is done by calling setSockOpt with ZMQ_SUBSCRIBE but I don't know how to do this with zeromq.js.
Is there a way to call setSockOpt with zeromq.js or is there another way to accept a subscription?
Edit
I tried user3666197's suggestion to call setSockOpt directly, but I am not sure how to do this. Rather than doing that, I took another look in the sources and found this: https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq.js/blob/master/src/native.ts#L617
It seems like setSockOpt is exposed to the TypeScript side as protected methods of the Socket class. To try this out, I created my own class that inherits XPublisher and exposed an acceptSubscription message:
class CustomPublisher extends zmq.XPublisher {
constructor(options?: zmq.SocketOptions<zmq.XPublisher>) {
super(options);
}
public acceptSubscription(subscription: string | null): void {
// ZMQ_SUBSCRIBE has a value of 6
// reference:
// https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/master/include/zmq.h#L310
this.setStringOption(6, subscription);
}
}
This works like a charm! But do not forget to strip the first byte of the subscription messages, otherwise your client won't receive any messages since the prefix won't match.
Q : "Is there a way to call setSockOpt() with zeromq.js or is there another way to accept a subscription?"
So, let me first mention Somdoron to be, out of doubts & for ages, a master of the ZeroMQ tooling.
Next comes the issue. The GitHub-sources, I was able to review atm, seem to me, that permit the ZMQ_XPUB-Socket-archetypes to process the native API ZMQ_XPUB_MANUAL settings ( re-dressed into manual-property, an idiomatic shift ), yet present no method (so far visible for me) to actually permit user to meet the native API explicit protocol of:
ZMQ_XPUB_MANUAL: change the subscription handling to manual...with manual mode subscription requests are not added to the subscription list. To add subscription the user need to call setsockopt() with ZMQ_SUBSCRIBE on XPUB socket./__ from ZeroMQ native API v.4.3.2 documentation __/
Trying to blind-call the Socket-inherited .SetSockOpt() method may prove me wrong, yet if successful, it may be a way to inject the { ZMQ_SUBSCRIBE | ZMQ_UNSUBSCRIBE } subscription-management steps into the XPUB-instance currently having been switched into the ZMQ_XPUB_MANUAL-mode.
Please test it, and if it fails to work via this super-class inherited method, the shortest remedy would be to claim that collision/conceptual-shortcomings directly to the zeromq.js maintainers ( it might be a W.I.P. item, deeper in their actual v6+ refactoring backlog, so my fingers are crossed for either case ).
I have some general questions, I start of on page main.ts
Via onInit I am grabbing data from a mongoose database server, which I save in an array.
This array needs to be available in other components. The way I do this right now, which seems to work, by using a service.ts
In the service I have a lot BehaviorSubjects and Subjects. So whenever I get the array data from mongoose I send a message to the service, and the other components subscribe to that message.
I am sometimes using Subject instead of BehaviorSubject because it throws error messages as in HTML I am using *ngFor and it expects an array, not a string 'default message'.
I am just wondering if this is a correct setup to move data between pages.
Right now I am also using this message system for updates on my component.
So if someone makes a comment or post on my website I send a message to my service which in turn updates an observable and my component subscribes again to that.
Are there better ways to update my site for new data and is there an easy way to explain why sometimes I get this error message from *ngFor and in other cases it doesn't throw this error whilst still using *ngFor.
i.e. when I update an observable will the component receive the message straight away or will it receive onInit.
With that also the question if it is best practice to use the below in the constructor of the component or the onInit.
I unsubscribe OnDestroy.
this.newService.currentMessageComment
.takeWhile(() => this.alive)
.subscribe(message => {
service.ts
public messageSourceMarketCap = new BehaviorSubject<any>('default message');
currentMessageMarketCap = this.messageSourceMarketCap.asObservable();
public messageSourceHistory = new Subject<any>();
currentMessageHistory = this.messageSourceHistory.asObservable();
public messageSouceApi = new BehaviorSubject<any>('default message');
currentMessageApi = this.messageSouceApi.asObservable();
public messageSourceBody = new BehaviorSubject<any>('default message');
currentMessageBody = this.messageSourceBody.asObservable();
Why are you using BehaviouSubject. I think in your case Subject will be better. BehaviouSubject fits in case when you want to pass a initial value while creating observable.
You can also quick fix by emiting an empty array as ngFor expects an array. Change from "default message" to [].
Hope it will help
thanks for stopping by.
I have a class, let's call Class1, that I use to give users of my app discounts / coupons. When a user finishes the registration process, I create an object and store the pointer to it on the user.
I want to give this class CLP permissions so that the public can create, but not write to this object. Let it only be something that I use internally.
My problem is that the class has several arrays that can't be undefined, or other cloud functions will end up throwing errors trying to read those values. I set up a beforeSave() trigger for the class, and use the master key, but the object isn't being saved so my entire user save at the end of registration isn't working. How do I fix this while keeping my object secure and making sure users can't steal all of my app's services for free?
Here is my beforeSave trigger:
Parse.Cloud.beforeSave("Class1", function(request, response)
{
Parse.Cloud.useMasterKey();
var emptyArray = [];
class1 = request.object;
if( class1.isNew() )
{
class1.set("array1", emptyArray);
class1.set("array2", emptyArray);
class1.set("array3", emptyArray);
}
response.success();
});
So I guess you can't use the master key to override CLP / ACL stuff in a beforeSave trigger... though it makes sense, as that would entirely defeat the point.
However, if you give public create access, you can populate any initial data, you just can't update it without update access. So, the obvious answer was to just set these parameters on the client side when I created the object and before I saved it.
I am developing an simple Chat Application, I can view the updated data when I click on the REFRESH Button, BUT can I refresh the data at a regular interval from the Server (as my Chat is getting Stored in the Database remotely)
Thanks in advance.
Use DelayedTask class of Sencha Touch:
//create the delayed task instance with our callback
var task = Ext.create('Ext.util.DelayedTask', function() {
//load the list's store here. The list will be automatically updated
listComp.getStore().load(); // Assuming your list component is "listComp"
listComp.refresh();
// The task will be called after each 10000 ms
task.delay(10000);
}, this);
//The function will start after 0 milliseconds
//so we want to start instantly at first
task.delay(0);
//to stop the task, just call the cancel method
//task.cancel();
This should work for your case.
You just need to call your refresh() function at a regular right ?
So you just need to add a setTimeout("refresh()", 1000); at the end of your refresh() function. Then you just need to call it when your app startup.
Hope this helps
Maybe you'll be interested in socket server connection in your chat application. Server will notify your clients whenever server data changes. Take a look at http://socket.io/
please look at this.
It will call the function for every (time you set).
http://www.sencha.com/forum/showthread.php?194202-Autorefresh-List-with-DelayedTask
I have an ASP.NET MVC 3 (.NET 4) web application.
This app fetches data from an Oracle database and mixes some information with another Sql Database.
Many tables are joined together and lot of database reading is involved.
I have already optimized the best I could the fetching side and I don't have problems with that.
I've use caching to save information I don't need to fetch over and over.
Now I would like to build a responsive interface and my goal is to present the users the order headers filtered, and load the order lines in background.
I want to do that cause I need to manage all the lines (order lines) as a whole cause of some calculations.
What I have done so far is using jQuery to make an Ajax call to my action where I fetch the order headers and save them in a cache (System.Web.Caching.Cache).
When the Ajax call has succeeded I fire off another Ajax call to fetch the lines (and, once again, save the result in a cache).
It works quite well.
Now I was trying to figure out if I can move some of this logic from the client to the server.
When my action is called I want to fetch the order header and start a new thread - responsible of the order lines fetching - and return the result to the client.
In a test app I tried both ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem and Task.Factory but I want the generated thread to access my cache.
I've put together a test app and done something like this:
TEST 1
[HttpPost]
public JsonResult RunTasks01()
{
var myCache = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Cache;
myCache.Remove("KEY1");
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(o => MyFunc(1, 5000000, myCache));
return (Json(true, JsonRequestBehavior.DenyGet));
}
TEST 2
[HttpPost]
public JsonResult RunTasks02()
{
var myCache = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Cache;
myCache.Remove("KEY1");
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
MyFunc(1, 5000000, myCache);
});
return (Json(true, JsonRequestBehavior.DenyGet));
}
MyFunc crates a list of items and save the result in a cache; pretty silly but it's just a test.
I would like to know if someone has a better solution or knows of some implications I might have access the cache in a separate thread?!
Is there anything I need to be aware of, I should avoid or I could improve ?
Thanks for your help.
One possible issue I can see with your approach is that System.Web.HttpContext.Current might not be available in a separate thread. As this thread could run later, once the request has finished. I would recommend you using the classes in the System.Runtime.Caching namespace that was introduced in .NET 4.0 instead of the old HttpContext.Cache.