Confirmation Of Assumptions On Sdk Follow

0
Avatar
Legacy Poster

Apologies, this post may extend outside the SDK once complete. We are preparing to migrate the label printing inside our ERP system to Bartender and want to make sure we have a good overall design with this first component that will extend into the other components we will eventually migrate. We had planned to use the SDK as a drop in replacement of the existing API we use, but some comments on this forum raised concerns with this design.

 

We are using Bartender Ent. Automation 10.x

 

The scenario is as follows:

 

  • 2 x Terminal Servers - All users access the application that initiates the label printing from these servers
    • Full source code access to these applications. We currently use a 3rd party API to print the bar code labels from inside the application.
  • 1 x Application Server - Runs background services and hosts the application the users run on the Terminal servers
  • 1 x SQL Server - the usual, hosts Bartender Sys database and the application databases on two separate instances
  • 1 x printer server - Typical Windows printer server, nothing special. Currently labels are printed to these queues. 

 

As stated above, we originally started down the path of using the SDK as a drop in replacement to the current 3rd party API we use in the application. The bartender documentation seems to recommend this approach unless it isn't possible, at which point it seems to recommend using commander/file drop style services as the alternative.

 

The problem is, we really do not want to install full Bartender on the Terminal Servers for a number of technical and security reasons. Most of our users should not have access to open Bartender, yet it appears it not only has to be installed to call the SDK, but all users have to have rights to it as well in order to print from the SDK.

 

So two questions to wrap this up:

 

  1. Are we correct in our assumptions about the SDK requirements or have we misunderstood?
  2. If we are correct, what is the alternate recommended approach for the configuration above?

 

Thanks, 

Jason

Please sign in to leave a comment.