Re: [regrep] Should IBM being working with us on this?

["Farrukh S. Najmi" <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com>]

David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
> Farrukh,
>  
> Errrr.  I think this is likely to drive folks away not bring them in
> here!?
>  
>   : -(
>  
> Remember - what your kids told you - "Dad - you may not always be
> right, but you are never wrong...."

Sorry if it appears that way. I did not intend to imply that they are
wrong.
My intent was to set the record straight that there *is* a registry and
repository standard that exists todays.
I am genuinely interested in what gaps exists in regrep specifically
compared to what their repository has to offer today.
Perhaps an IBM colleague on the lists would contribute to this discussion?

>  
> So folks don't need reminded of that.  Frankly I could agree with IBM
> on this one - its NOT about the spec'.
>  
> Always put yourself in your customers shoes - and ask - why are they
> not using my product already?
>  
> Here are some inklings of what IBM wants:
>  
> 1) Highly extensible GUI with support for AJAX et al
>    - ok - this is work in progress for us with REST and
>    - "Any way, 2 minutes with Eclipse and the JBoss-IDE and I have
> auto-genenerated EJB3 (JPA) entity and SLSB facades from the existing
> omar 3 database schema.  How cool is that!"

I feel that both of above can be done with the current regrep spec.
IMHO, GUI is not a spec issues but a product / implementation issue.

>  
> 2) Easy deployment model
>    - so you are re-writing OMAR to get there...
>    - current installation and setup is a bear - definately not SME
> friendly

IMHO above is not a spec issues but a product / implementation issue.

>  
> 3) Built-in WSDL plug-n-play
>     - OK you have to buy the Sun release for that - not something IBM
> wants to hear...

Not sure I follow. Whatever Sun offers for above is available in
freebXML Registry and is based upon the draft ebXML Registry Profile for
WSDL.
>  
> 4) Simplier classification and management UI
>     - this is really linked to 1) - so content management is much more
> intuitive - something like the TortoiseCVS interface on the client
> side would be scary good...

Please see my point above that UI is not a spec / standards issue.
Recall the discussion was around a SOA Registry Repository standard.

>  
> 5) Linkage to Eclipse IDE so it aligns with the mainstream core toolset

IMHO above is an impl issue not a spec / standard issue.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com