In the last part of this tutorial about the XmlServiceExplorer, I introduced requesting useful information from the farm as well as resolving addresses.
Now, I’d like to demonstrate how chatty the XML service is when it comes to applications and their configuration. Some pieces of information are required for Web Interface to operate while others can be regarded as compromising.
In the first part of my tutorial about the XmlServiceExplorer, I have explained how session management is performed by the Web Interface and how the same behaviour can be reproduced by the XmlServiceExplorer. I recommend you also read the initial article: Talking to the XML Service.
Now I’d like to introduce several requests providing useful information about a farm and its servers through the XML service.
After publishing the XmlServiceExplorer, I’d like to give you some ideas how to use this application to do some debugging. In this article, I will demonstrate how Web Interface manages sessions using the XML service and how the same effects are achieved using the XmlServiceExplorer.
You may have noticed me taking interest in the XML service and its importance in application delivery based on Citrix products. The DTD NFuse.dtd for XML requests is updated with each version of Web Interface to reflect the current revision of the dialect used for communication. The following table contains a list of dialects (expressed as version numbers) the individual products are speaking (according to their XML requests and replies).
Inspired by Andy Zhu’s article explaining how to exclude a server from load balancing, I repeated some of the commands from my earlier article about CPSCOM to explore which interfaces are available.
Haven’t we all tried to figure out why a setup of Presentation Server with Web Interface and Program Neighborhood Agent is not working as it was designed to be? And haven’t we all traced the network traffic using WireShark to expose the misbehaving component? Yes, to both questions.
I have already written about shadow keys in the past explaining the TermSrvCopyKeyOnce and how they are handled on Windows x64. So far, I have only provided descriptions of technical matters concerning shadow keys. This article contains a discussion whether shadow keys are still applicable in modern application delivery infrastructures.
Lately, I have been working with Windows x64 a lot. I am under the impression that few are really aware of the behavioural changes introduced by the Windows-on-Windows 64 (WoW64) layer enabling 32-bit applications to run on Windows x64. Therefore, I attempt to expand on some of the peculiarities of WoW64 in this blog.
By now, you have probably read about sepago striking a deal with Citrix (see our press release as PDF as well as Doug’s and Thomas Kötzing’s article). Our product sepagoPROFILE is now owned by Citrix and released under the name of “User Profile Manager” or, short, UPM. I am really glad to announce that I will be able to maintain the whitepaper about user profile management which I have published in the last months.
You didn’t think that my first article about the early release of Project Delaware contained every change in there, did you? Thanks to my colleague Timm for pointing this out to me :-)
I completely missed the Special Folder Redirection, which I will expand on further down this article, as well as several minor changes.