Remote Administration using COM from ME Standard edition?

itrdev
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:46 pm
Location: Canton, OH, USA

Remote Administration using COM from ME Standard edition?

Postby itrdev » Wed May 01, 2013 5:40 pm

Hello, all.

My company currently runs ME Enterprise and our web application on the same server. The web application utilizes the COM API to manage mailboxes and postoffices. Within the next month we are going to move ME to its own server to reduce the load from the web server and I know that updates will need to be made to the web application to support that move.

My question is this: How do I get the COM objects to be available on the web application server so that it can use the remote administration API to manage the mailboxes and postoffices once MailEnable is moved to a new server?

Here are the thoughts I had, but I'm not sure which are valid:
1. Try to manually copy and register the right .dll files on the application server from the ME Enterprise installation on the new mail server. I don't like this option very much as it's error prone and software updates would be tricky at best.
2. Install ME Standard on the web application server (assuming it installs the right COM objects). I don't mind this option even though I don't need any other part of MailEnable on the web application server. I plan on disabling the ME services so they are not consuming resources. This seems a little overkill since all we really need are the COM objects.

I've been working to test option 2, but my testing so far has been inconclusive. My biggest concern is that the Standard edition does not provide all of the COM objects that are needed for remote administration (specifically MEAORA).

My fallback to option 2 is to install ME Enterprise on the web application server and then disabling all the services. My concern is that this would either violate the license terms or quit working after the trial period if a license wasn't purchased. I really don't want to spend that much money on a ME Enterprise license for our app server since we wouldn't be using ME to serve mail. That also leaves us in the position that we would need additional ME Enterprise licenses for our development and QA environments so that we can adequately test new code before pushing it to the production servers.

I'd love to hear if anyone else has had success with this and also what the official MailEnable stance is. Are there any other options I'm overlooking?

MailEnable
Site Admin
Posts: 4441
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 3:03 am
Location: Melbourne, Victoria Australia

Re: Remote Administration using COM from ME Standard edition

Postby MailEnable » Sat May 11, 2013 11:50 pm

There is no simple way to expose the COM objects remotely with MailEnable Standard Edition. It may be possible by setting the host property on the object having configured the session with mearo, but as you say the object is not deployed with standard.

If you are trying to do this with Standard Edition then you will probably need to explore trying to use COM proxy stubs. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-au/library ... 98(v=vs.85).aspx
Unfortunately COM is a legacy technology, so heavily investing in getting it working is not ideal.

Alternatively, you would possibly be better to install Enterprise edition on the server and just use the Standard Edition features (since these are still available upon expiration).
This would register MEAORO and make it available. The software would appear as expired, but the core features of Standard Edition would still be functional even though it has expired.

Although, the best way to do this would be to use web services between the client and the server; and Version 7 publishes a web service interface to do this. The asmx files can be easily absorbed into your application and you can then call the objects remotely. These web service management interface is distributed with all Version 7 releases.
Regards, Andrew

itrdev
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:46 pm
Location: Canton, OH, USA

Re: Remote Administration using COM from ME Standard edition

Postby itrdev » Mon May 13, 2013 12:03 pm

Thanks for the reply, Andrew! This is the answer I was hoping to get.

I understand that COM is going away (and I'm looking forward to cleaning it out of my project), however my project's timeline doesn't allow me to luxury of updating to use the new web services just yet, so I'm looking to leverage the existing COM integration that's there.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests