Re: Whitepaper: CMS interoperability?

The downside of a portlet approach like WSRP is that it's designed as a
mechanism for embedding an entire *application* into another application. It
doesn't let you drill down and navigate (efficiently) around the
data/content itself. If you do want to integrate at a detailed level, any
mechanism based on HTTP will have sub-optimal performance. That doesn't make
it unusable - we've used this approach quite a bit - but a native API offers
more raw power.

However, I agree that a cross platform approach is a good idea (though of
course at one level Java *is* cross platform...) and also JSR 170 makes
assumptions about all sorts of things like the repository's treatment of
versioning, security etc which can be a pain in the neck. Certainly an
integration project can get off the ground much faster using a web service
approach. The history of the Web so far shows that loosely coupled
architectures always win out whenever the performance price is acceptable.

Nick

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Olli Aro" <olli_aro-/[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: [CMS] Whitepaper: CMS interoperability?


> What is people's opinion on WSRP compared to JSR 170? It seems to me that
> this might gain more momentum, since based on web services and therefore
> cross platform.
>
> Regards,
>
> Olli
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Williams
> Sent: 04 April 2005 14:33
> To: James Robertson; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [CMS] Whitepaper: CMS interoperability?
>
> Hi James - Day (www.day.com) make a big thing about JSR 170 on their
website
> and claim to be both the innovators and leaders of the same - there is
also
> an article that might interest readers done by Gartner on the same topic
>
http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/gc/webletter/daysoftware/issue2/gartner1.ht
> ml - Day's site did list some 'big names' that are involved in the
> development of the standard a while back - but these have since
> disappeared.....maybe a bit too soon to go public ;-)
>
> Regards
> Steve Williams
> RedDot Solutions UK
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: James Robertson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Mon 04/04/2005 13:37
> To: [email protected]
> Cc:
> Subject: [CMS] Whitepaper: CMS interoperability?
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> In case it's of interest to the group, this is one of the articles
> we've published this month:
>
> * CMS interoperability?
>    http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_interoperability/index.html
>    While the goal of interoperability between content management
> systems
>    is very important, it is limited by the lack of implemented
> standards.
>
> Regards,
> James
> -------------------------
> James Robertson
> Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
> Knowledge Management / Content Management / Intranets
>
> http://www.steptwo.com.au/
> [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> cms mailing list
> [email protected]
> Subscription controls:
> http://lists.cms-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/cms
> Netiquette FAQ and related CMS lists - [cms-forum], [cms-pr],
> [contentmanagers], [cmpros]
> http://www.cmsreview.com/NetiquetteFAQ.html
> http://www.cms-lists.org
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01/04/2005
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01/04/2005
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cms mailing list
> [email protected]
> Subscription controls:
> http://lists.cms-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/cms
> Netiquette FAQ and related CMS lists - [cms-forum], [cms-pr],
[contentmanagers], [cmpros]
> http://www.cmsreview.com/NetiquetteFAQ.html
> http://www.cms-lists.org
>
>