<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>In that context, no there shouldn't
be any hidden ports being used. If you still run into issues
while keeping open just one (relevant) port open in the
firewall, then please do let us know the details or even drop me
a mail with a reproducible application so we can investigate.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>-Jaikiran</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>On Wednesday 17 July 2013 05:00 PM, Wolf-Dieter Fink
wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51E6804E.9070108@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>The reason of the question is
that from my tests with AS7 I need to open the firewall as
there is no possibility to invoke ejb's remote across
different machines</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> I did not investigate further what is the exact reason
behind (I think remoting will open it but not sure) but if I
only open the 'visible' ports shown in the configuration the
ejb-invocation failed.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> After allow the communication for all ports it worked.</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt><tt> Wolf</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt><tt> On 07/17/2013 01:23 PM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51E67EA2.9050303@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>Hi Wolf,</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt>Sorry, I am not getting the context of that
question. Which additional temporary ports were being used?</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt>-Jaikiran</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt>On Wednesday 17 July 2013 04:51 PM, Wolf-Dieter
Fink wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51E67E2F.9090404@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>Yes Jaikiran,</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt> I understood that but does that mean also that
there are no additional temporary ports used (for ejb
invocation) as this was in former versions?</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt> - Wolf</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt> On 07/17/2013 12:58 PM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51E678E6.6030800@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>This isn't just a
ejb-client specific thing. One of the goals of WildFly 8
has been to allow communication over a single port
(http). So ports like 4447 are no longer opened by
default. This affects all applications communicating
with WildFly and isn't specific to ejb-client. For
example, even remote naming need to use the new port.</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt>-Jaikiran</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt>On Wednesday 17 July 2013 04:18 PM, Wolf-Dieter
Fink wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51E67676.6080605@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>works so far,</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt> but yet another change to the ejb-client.</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt> Does this mean the whole communication will
use the 8080 port and there is no other temporary port
opened (for firewall configuration)?</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt> - Wolf</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt> On 07/17/2013 12:12 PM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51E66E0B.7040407@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>WildFly upstream no
longer uses 4447 port for remote communication.
Undertow now supports http-upgrade which means that
the communication happens on the http port which by
default is 8080.</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt>-Jaikiran</tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt>On Wednesday 17 July 2013 03:31 PM,
Wolf-Dieter Fink wrote:</tt><tt><br>
</tt> </div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51E66B74.1090808@redhat.com"
type="cite"><tt>I try to run my quickstart
(ejb-multi-server) with WildFly. </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt>Configuration and deployment work. </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt>But the (remote) EJB invocation failed.
Neither standalone nor client inside the server
works. </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt>If I use an older WildFly pulled at the
07/11 (don't know the exact commit) everything works
fine. </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt>I retest with the ejb-remote QS, here the
same issue. </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt>To avoid any maven issue I've used plain
java command and include the correct
jboss-client.jar </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt>I've attached the logfiles from a working
and non-working attempt. </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt>The only difference I see is that the
ejb-client library is new (moved from 1.x =>
2.x.Beta), remoting is unkown and XNIO 3.1.0.CR3. </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt>- Wolf </tt><tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt> <tt><br>
</tt>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<tt><br>
</tt>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org">wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt> </blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt> </blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt> </blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt> </blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt> </blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt> </blockquote>
<tt><br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>