[Backgroundrb-devel] Question about acls

[Stephen Weiss]

So, I had some success.  Basically, I totally eliminated the acl by  
commenting out the line:

self.setup_drb_acl

in method 'setup' in backgroundrb_server.rb.

Then, the connection opens up (I have a firewall and this machine is  
totally blocked from the outside, I'm really not worried about  
leaving this open).  Important to note here is that you can't just  
remove the ACL from your configuration - you have to edit the source,  
since backgroundrb_server.rb will install its own ACL otherwise.

However, staying with port 22222 also proved to be a problem - even  
though I was able to connect, no data seemed to go through on port  
22222.  Switching to port 22223 completely solved this problem.

Now my program is very happy.  I can start backgroundrb on server2,  
and start rails on server1.  Then, when I do script/console and type  
MiddleMan.jobs on server1, I get a response.  If I search for a  
worker that isn't there, I get the expected error message, labelled  
from server2.

So, 2 basic things I'm taking away from this - port 22222 has some  
issue, at least on my machines - and it seems that applying any ACL  
blocks remote access, regardless of what's actually in the ACL.  One  
more thing - if I did set the ACL to :allow => "127.0.0.1" instead  
of :allow => "localhost 127.0.0.1", connections through 127.0.0.1  
worked, while as expected connections through ::1 failed.  No matter  
what, you have to completely disable the acl to get a connection from  
a remote machine.

Sorry if this is all documented a million times somewhere, I couldn't  
find it.  Thanks again for such useful software, it's almost perfect  
now!


One more question - is there an issue now with calling one worker's  
method from another worker?  I have a chat notification worker that  
works fine if it's called from rails or from the backgroundrb  
console, but if it's called from another worker nothing seems to  
happen (like, the method never gets called, there's no error or  
anything).  It's not a deal-breaker, but it did work in ver 1...

--
Steve