Subject: RE: [regrep] Should IBM being working with us on this?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [regrep] Should IBM being working with us on this?
From: "Farrukh S. Najmi" <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, April 30, 2007 1:52 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.comDavid 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