RE: Whitepaper: CMS interoperability?

Oli,

Once again I think jsr-168 and WSRP have very different requirements that
each fulfill.  

168 are, like most j2ee API's, very limited and takes the lowest common
denominator of requirements that all java portal vendors can support.  And
there is room for vendors to extend the implementation.  I believe that
jsr-168 has penetrated the java market effectively.  However, if I was
developing a new portal for a customer that didn't need 168 then I would not
use it.  A 168 based portlet is just not as powerful as the proprietary
portlets that you can build with the vendors, for instance a page flow based
portlet in BEA Portal or a struts based portlet in IBM Portal.  I think that
the 168 portlet is very useful to vendors that want to provide portlets to
all java portal vendors.  For instance if I was a product manager at
IWOV/DOCU/VIG/Opentext/etc I would want one 168 based portlets instead of n
number of proprietary portlets.

WSRP was stated well by Nick's previous post.  Additionally, I think that
WSRP has penetrated the market being a platform neutral W$ standard but I
don't think it's reached its full potential in the market.  I don't believe
that 3rd party vendors have seen the need for implementing it yet.  I know
that I haven't seen any requirements come through my inbox that have the
need for it.  I also think that WSRP is a bit more difficult of a standard
to both code and architect.

Integration is a tricky little beast.  SOAP based web services make things
easier and more complicated at the same time.  I am a firm believer that if
you focus many cycles to finding the real requirements that the
implementation will show itself to be quite simple.  I always try and keep
it simple and as granular as possible.  Also know that database access
shouldn't be complicated.

I don't think I would look at 170 to implement until there are some more
products on the market.  However, I wouldn't want to pick a vendor that
doesn't have 170 in its product roadmap.

Hope I answered your questions somewhere above.
Regards,
-Travis

-----Original Message-----
From: Olli Aro [mailto:olli_aro-/[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [CMS] Whitepaper: CMS interoperability?

As Travis already pointed out I got my standards mixed up (JSR 168 <--> JSR
170). Sorry for the confusion. But I think the issue is still there. Both
standards above have been around now for relatively long time and still
lacking the take up. So, are they already too old fashioned and should all
integration go more web services way? Or maybe the way to go is to have API
such as JSR 170 for a tight integration and then some of the functions could
be exposed for more loose integration as web services?

Regards,

Olli

-- 
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