We'd like to have the OEE (port 9090, part of adminserver) available on our production PASOE servers.
The primary reason is in order to easily manage the ABL applications and webapps (and their related openedge.properties) with the related OEE user interface . Another reason for adminserver is because we need yet another free component of the the adminserver framework, which is the sonic-adapter-broker-service used for JMS messaging. It also has corresponding OEE user interface and its own management functions in OEE as well.
But for some reason OEE it is NOT made available by default, and there are no prompts during the setup to make it available. And no utility to enable it after the fact.
In the past we've used a weird workaround - adding and removing another random Progress license via the "License Update" utility. This seems to have the effect of pulling in OEE, without breaking any legal contracts (hopefully). Afterwards the randomly selected license is removed again, but OEE seems to "stick" and it happily remains in place. I noticed there is a very short article to this effect:
- you will notice in the article that they suggest installing all of *PDSOE* on a *production* server.
Can someone please comment on this KB? Should we follow-up those instructions by *uninstalling* the temporary Progress license that we had used to smuggle adminserver into the installation? Should we leave PDSOE on the server permanently? Is there another alternative Progress license - aside from PDSOE - that we can use to smuggle adminserver and OEE? (It is a bit of a shock to consider installing PDSOE on a production server, for any reason whatsoever!) Are there any additional legal or licensing concerns that are associated with the enabling of OEE on PASOE for production?
I wish that KB article elaborated on available licenses that could be used to smuggle adminserver and OEE. The article leaves a lot of open questions. I also wish that PASOE prompted whether to enable OEE (or installed a utility that would allow that after the fact). It seems that Progress assumes that PASOE customers will have a remote server with OEE/OEM to manage PASOE remotely. But that is less practical than keeping all of the Progress stuff in one place.
I'm going to assume it is totally legal to do what the KB says and install PDSOE, then use the license update utility to remove the license afterwards. Those unusual steps seem to have the intended effect of enabling adminserver/OEE. We don't seem to lose OEE again after removing the license.
An added bonus is that once adminserver/OEE are in place, you can easily enable the "sonic-adapter-broker-service-thingy" if needed (... which is a component of the AdminServer infrastructure that doesn't have an additional charge if you already own PASOE, per the information provided to us by our account representative.)
Here is a screenshot of that KB article as it is written now.
There are some things that still concern me about the recommendation for installing PDSOE. It may have negative side-effects and consequences that aren't fully explained in that very short KB article. For example, I suspect that it might set in place components that may allow programs to be *dynamically* compiled in production - possibly even programs that *update* the database. I haven't fully investigated whether or not the KB leads to these side-effects, but will do so before moving ahead. It would be nice if Progress provided a formal utility, rather that telling PASOE customers to install PDSOE in production...
From talking with the PASOE developers (Roy Ellis and Dave Cleary) at Progress NEXT this year, it sounds like they intend for the production PASOE server to be extremely locked down out of the box, intentionally not installing OEE for security reasons. It sounds like the recommendation is to get familiar with the pasman/tcman command line tools for managing a production PASOE server. If Roy or Dave or one of the other PASOE developers can explain this better, I'd appreciate it as well.
You can legally install OEE on the production PASOE server if you have a license for any product in this list (NameServer is probably your best option):
Here is a related article: knowledgebase.progress.com/.../How-to-connect-Progress-Development-Studio-for-OpenEdge-to-a-remote-Pacific-App-Server
I hope this helps,
Thanks for the feedback. In our case, the desire to install OEE doesn't have to do with security. The main reason for OEE is because it is the only user-friendly front-end that is provided for administration (see PS***). If the OEE port 9090 was disallowed to all remote clients, that would still be fine by us and it would still serve our purposes to log into the server in order to do administration.
The KB article ( https://knowledgebase.progress.com/articles/Article/pasoe-installation-does-not-install-the-adminserver ) doesn't take into consideration the legal aspects of installing something like PDSOE on a production server. Given the wording of that KB, I'm assuming you wouldn't burn up a whole license of PDSOE just in order to make OEE available on PASOE-PRODUCTION.
I suspect it is only a very small percent of installations of PASOE-PRODUCTION that wouldn't include adminserver and/or OEE. AdminServer would "come along for the ride" any time a customer needs dataserver, the sonic-broker-adapter-service, etc.
***PS. This assumes that server admins don't have intimate knowledge of Progress, Tomcat, or the related command line tools. The routine admin work that is required for PASOE should not necessarily involve running tcman commands.