Re: Hypothetical
That's definitely a place where I'd explore other integration options then, Jarl. IMO, Web Services isn't a good bulk transfer mechanism but it's really handy and flexible for transactional stuff. Just the overhead of using an XML parser (SAX or DOM, though DOM is worse) makes it more bloated than other access mechanisms. Add the Mid-Tier to the mix, and you're just looking for trouble. :) -Chris -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:07 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical A few Kb was just a joke. But with messages 100kb ++ and 10-15000 messages a day the server did malloc quite often... This was on solaris with oracle. -- Jarl On 6/11/07, Grooms, Frederick W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jarl, > What platform are you on? I routinely have 60 - 100 Kb XML transactions with no memory errors. (I am on Sun with Oracle) > > Fred > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 12:57 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > AR Server as middleware? Huh, it cant handle larger xml than a few Kb. > Storing XML in a database as tables and fields(like its done in AR > System) are not the prefered method when talking about performance. > > We all love the Malloc 300 errormessage when using webservices > -- > Jarl > > > On 6/9/07, Chris Woyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's an opposing thought worth considering... > > > > Going back to the spirit of ARS being a Rapid Development Platform, > > why would BMC encourage development of the *same thing* that's out > > there already, regardless of who produced it? Many have lost sight of > > ARS as a development medium because it's been perceived as "just a > > Help Desk" for quite some time - and adding 50 more flavors of IT > > Request/Service Management won't do much to fix that perception. > > > > Requiring partners to produce products that are in non-competition is > > certainly part of the goal - money drives everything, as they say. > > However, it may also be construed as pushing the horizontal boundaries > > of the platform - pushing ISV's to take the product and move it into other arenas. > > There's obviously some interest in taking advantage of this facility, > > so instead of ITSM-esque applications, how about Fleet Management, > > Document Management, Middleware (Web Services + ARDBC + Workflow > > Engine is a dynamite combo for this), Financial Applications, etc. > > > > IMHO, those things add value to the platform - another ITSM product doesn't. > > A bigger pie provides revenue to BMC, no doubt, but it also gives the > > ISV a chance at more than crumbs. > > > > -Chris Woyton > > ATS, TuringSMI > > > > ps with regards to Robert's comment on CMDB, another thought comes to > > mind - I've often pondered using the OBJSTR sub-system as a > > development medium all on its own. Imagine this - you build a core set > > of Classes for a particular use, for example, > > Middleware/Data-Transfer. When a new Data Source becomes available, > > specialized a Sub-Class for it. Consumers of the data can then point > > to the specific Sub-Class or the root Parent Class (or at any point in > > the tree) depending on what data they need to use. Or, in a Request > > Management application, rather than providing different "Views" of an > > app to suit different groups, specialize a Sub-Class for that Group > > such that common data is shared, but specific data is segmented. Data > > sets could be used to support Tenancy in a model like this and the Recon Engine could facilitate inter-application integration (as well as exta-application). > > > > Maybe one of you hyper-motivated young guns can play with that idea > > (Reinfeldt already busts my chops for the 30 or so half-written emails > > to him I haven't had time to finish, so no way would I commit to > > prototyping that stuff..hehehe) :) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Molenda > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:27 PM > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > > > > > Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of us > > on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! > > >
Re: Hypothetical
I think a plain XML, one level, can be quite huge. But with complex XMLs, grand parent - parent - child relationship the server has enough to process. Every child will create a "filter"(named arserverfilter) that push the child to its form. I also see in server logs that a filter named arserverfilter is missing. Think this happend when the server are under a heavy load. It may be solved with a true multithreaded mid-tier. I think XMLGateway from http://www.javasystemsolutions.com/ is a much better product than mid-tier for xml processing. -- Jarl On 6/11/07, Evans.Randy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't do that to me. You had me scared. Were hoping if I can get things figured out to be passing our IT Fulfillment records to SAP for approvals and back to us for fulfillment. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:07 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical A few Kb was just a joke. But with messages 100kb ++ and 10-15000 messages a day the server did malloc quite often... This was on solaris with oracle. -- Jarl On 6/11/07, Grooms, Frederick W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jarl, > What platform are you on? I routinely have 60 - 100 Kb XML transactions with no memory errors. (I am on Sun with Oracle) > > Fred > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 12:57 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > AR Server as middleware? Huh, it cant handle larger xml than a few Kb. > Storing XML in a database as tables and fields(like its done in AR > System) are not the prefered method when talking about performance. > > We all love the Malloc 300 errormessage when using webservices > -- > Jarl > > > On 6/9/07, Chris Woyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's an opposing thought worth considering... > > > > Going back to the spirit of ARS being a Rapid Development Platform, > > why would BMC encourage development of the *same thing* that's out > > there already, regardless of who produced it? Many have lost sight > > of ARS as a development medium because it's been perceived as "just > > a Help Desk" for quite some time - and adding 50 more flavors of IT > > Request/Service Management won't do much to fix that perception. > > > > Requiring partners to produce products that are in non-competition > > is certainly part of the goal - money drives everything, as they say. > > However, it may also be construed as pushing the horizontal > > boundaries of the platform - pushing ISV's to take the product and move it into other arenas. > > There's obviously some interest in taking advantage of this > > facility, so instead of ITSM-esque applications, how about Fleet > > Management, Document Management, Middleware (Web Services + ARDBC + > > Workflow Engine is a dynamite combo for this), Financial Applications, etc. > > > > IMHO, those things add value to the platform - another ITSM product doesn't. > > A bigger pie provides revenue to BMC, no doubt, but it also gives > > the ISV a chance at more than crumbs. > > > > -Chris Woyton > > ATS, TuringSMI > > > > ps with regards to Robert's comment on CMDB, another thought comes > > to mind - I've often pondered using the OBJSTR sub-system as a > > development medium all on its own. Imagine this - you build a core > > set of Classes for a particular use, for example, > > Middleware/Data-Transfer. When a new Data Source becomes available, > > specialized a Sub-Class for it. Consumers of the data can then point > > to the specific Sub-Class or the root Parent Class (or at any point > > in the tree) depending on what data they need to use. Or, in a > > Request Management application, rather than providing different > > "Views" of an app to suit different groups, specialize a Sub-Class > > for that Group such that common data is shared, but specific data is > > segmented. Data sets could be used to support Tenancy in a model like this and the Recon Engine could facilitate inter-application integration (as well as exta-application). > > > > Maybe one of you hyper-motivated young guns can play with that idea > > (Reinfeldt already busts my chops for the 30 or so half-written > > emails to him I haven't had time to finish, so no way would I commit > > to prototyping that stuff..hehehe) :) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Action Request Syst
Re: Hypothetical
Don't do that to me. You had me scared. Were hoping if I can get things figured out to be passing our IT Fulfillment records to SAP for approvals and back to us for fulfillment. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:07 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical A few Kb was just a joke. But with messages 100kb ++ and 10-15000 messages a day the server did malloc quite often... This was on solaris with oracle. -- Jarl On 6/11/07, Grooms, Frederick W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jarl, > What platform are you on? I routinely have 60 - 100 Kb XML transactions > with no memory errors. (I am on Sun with Oracle) > > Fred > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 12:57 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > AR Server as middleware? Huh, it cant handle larger xml than a few Kb. > Storing XML in a database as tables and fields(like its done in AR > System) are not the prefered method when talking about performance. > > We all love the Malloc 300 errormessage when using webservices > -- > Jarl > > > On 6/9/07, Chris Woyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's an opposing thought worth considering... > > > > Going back to the spirit of ARS being a Rapid Development Platform, > > why would BMC encourage development of the *same thing* that's out > > there already, regardless of who produced it? Many have lost sight > > of ARS as a development medium because it's been perceived as "just > > a Help Desk" for quite some time - and adding 50 more flavors of IT > > Request/Service Management won't do much to fix that perception. > > > > Requiring partners to produce products that are in non-competition > > is certainly part of the goal - money drives everything, as they say. > > However, it may also be construed as pushing the horizontal > > boundaries of the platform - pushing ISV's to take the product and move it > > into other arenas. > > There's obviously some interest in taking advantage of this > > facility, so instead of ITSM-esque applications, how about Fleet > > Management, Document Management, Middleware (Web Services + ARDBC + > > Workflow Engine is a dynamite combo for this), Financial Applications, etc. > > > > IMHO, those things add value to the platform - another ITSM product doesn't. > > A bigger pie provides revenue to BMC, no doubt, but it also gives > > the ISV a chance at more than crumbs. > > > > -Chris Woyton > > ATS, TuringSMI > > > > ps with regards to Robert's comment on CMDB, another thought comes > > to mind - I've often pondered using the OBJSTR sub-system as a > > development medium all on its own. Imagine this - you build a core > > set of Classes for a particular use, for example, > > Middleware/Data-Transfer. When a new Data Source becomes available, > > specialized a Sub-Class for it. Consumers of the data can then point > > to the specific Sub-Class or the root Parent Class (or at any point > > in the tree) depending on what data they need to use. Or, in a > > Request Management application, rather than providing different > > "Views" of an app to suit different groups, specialize a Sub-Class > > for that Group such that common data is shared, but specific data is > > segmented. Data sets could be used to support Tenancy in a model like this > > and the Recon Engine could facilitate inter-application integration (as > > well as exta-application). > > > > Maybe one of you hyper-motivated young guns can play with that idea > > (Reinfeldt already busts my chops for the 30 or so half-written > > emails to him I haven't had time to finish, so no way would I commit > > to prototyping that stuff..hehehe) :) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Molenda > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:27 PM > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > > > > > Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of > > us on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! > > > > I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, > > especially in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module > > Integratio
Re: Hypothetical
A few Kb was just a joke. But with messages 100kb ++ and 10-15000 messages a day the server did malloc quite often... This was on solaris with oracle. -- Jarl On 6/11/07, Grooms, Frederick W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jarl, What platform are you on? I routinely have 60 - 100 Kb XML transactions with no memory errors. (I am on Sun with Oracle) Fred -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 12:57 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical AR Server as middleware? Huh, it cant handle larger xml than a few Kb. Storing XML in a database as tables and fields(like its done in AR System) are not the prefered method when talking about performance. We all love the Malloc 300 errormessage when using webservices -- Jarl On 6/9/07, Chris Woyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's an opposing thought worth considering... > > Going back to the spirit of ARS being a Rapid Development Platform, > why would BMC encourage development of the *same thing* that's out > there already, regardless of who produced it? Many have lost sight of > ARS as a development medium because it's been perceived as "just a > Help Desk" for quite some time - and adding 50 more flavors of IT > Request/Service Management won't do much to fix that perception. > > Requiring partners to produce products that are in non-competition is > certainly part of the goal - money drives everything, as they say. > However, it may also be construed as pushing the horizontal boundaries > of the platform - pushing ISV's to take the product and move it into other arenas. > There's obviously some interest in taking advantage of this facility, > so instead of ITSM-esque applications, how about Fleet Management, > Document Management, Middleware (Web Services + ARDBC + Workflow > Engine is a dynamite combo for this), Financial Applications, etc. > > IMHO, those things add value to the platform - another ITSM product doesn't. > A bigger pie provides revenue to BMC, no doubt, but it also gives the > ISV a chance at more than crumbs. > > -Chris Woyton > ATS, TuringSMI > > ps with regards to Robert's comment on CMDB, another thought comes to > mind - I've often pondered using the OBJSTR sub-system as a > development medium all on its own. Imagine this - you build a core set > of Classes for a particular use, for example, > Middleware/Data-Transfer. When a new Data Source becomes available, > specialized a Sub-Class for it. Consumers of the data can then point > to the specific Sub-Class or the root Parent Class (or at any point in > the tree) depending on what data they need to use. Or, in a Request > Management application, rather than providing different "Views" of an > app to suit different groups, specialize a Sub-Class for that Group > such that common data is shared, but specific data is segmented. Data > sets could be used to support Tenancy in a model like this and the Recon Engine could facilitate inter-application integration (as well as exta-application). > > Maybe one of you hyper-motivated young guns can play with that idea > (Reinfeldt already busts my chops for the 30 or so half-written emails > to him I haven't had time to finish, so no way would I commit to > prototyping that stuff..hehehe) :) > > -----Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Molenda > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:27 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > > Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of us > on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! > > I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, > especially in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module > Integration' so to say. > > The BMC CMDB while being 'OK' (not to take this completely off topic) > is such an overhead that a much simpler and "customer fitting design" > would be so much more performant to the ARSystem and other applications... > (none the less cheaper and easier to maintain at times!) > > At what point will BMC begin to limit customizations? Imagine if the > install of say Incident Management installed all objects in "Locked > Mode"... > > I wonder at times if BMC forgot the first envisioned cause for ARS... > Rapid Application Development, Flexible Workflow, ... > > Robert > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:28 PM
Re: Hypothetical
Jarl, What platform are you on? I routinely have 60 - 100 Kb XML transactions with no memory errors. (I am on Sun with Oracle) Fred -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 12:57 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical AR Server as middleware? Huh, it cant handle larger xml than a few Kb. Storing XML in a database as tables and fields(like its done in AR System) are not the prefered method when talking about performance. We all love the Malloc 300 errormessage when using webservices -- Jarl On 6/9/07, Chris Woyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's an opposing thought worth considering... > > Going back to the spirit of ARS being a Rapid Development Platform, > why would BMC encourage development of the *same thing* that's out > there already, regardless of who produced it? Many have lost sight of > ARS as a development medium because it's been perceived as "just a > Help Desk" for quite some time - and adding 50 more flavors of IT > Request/Service Management won't do much to fix that perception. > > Requiring partners to produce products that are in non-competition is > certainly part of the goal - money drives everything, as they say. > However, it may also be construed as pushing the horizontal boundaries > of the platform - pushing ISV's to take the product and move it into other > arenas. > There's obviously some interest in taking advantage of this facility, > so instead of ITSM-esque applications, how about Fleet Management, > Document Management, Middleware (Web Services + ARDBC + Workflow > Engine is a dynamite combo for this), Financial Applications, etc. > > IMHO, those things add value to the platform - another ITSM product doesn't. > A bigger pie provides revenue to BMC, no doubt, but it also gives the > ISV a chance at more than crumbs. > > -Chris Woyton > ATS, TuringSMI > > ps with regards to Robert's comment on CMDB, another thought comes to > mind - I've often pondered using the OBJSTR sub-system as a > development medium all on its own. Imagine this - you build a core set > of Classes for a particular use, for example, > Middleware/Data-Transfer. When a new Data Source becomes available, > specialized a Sub-Class for it. Consumers of the data can then point > to the specific Sub-Class or the root Parent Class (or at any point in > the tree) depending on what data they need to use. Or, in a Request > Management application, rather than providing different "Views" of an > app to suit different groups, specialize a Sub-Class for that Group > such that common data is shared, but specific data is segmented. Data > sets could be used to support Tenancy in a model like this and the Recon > Engine could facilitate inter-application integration (as well as > exta-application). > > Maybe one of you hyper-motivated young guns can play with that idea > (Reinfeldt already busts my chops for the 30 or so half-written emails > to him I haven't had time to finish, so no way would I commit to > prototyping that stuff..hehehe) :) > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Molenda > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:27 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > > Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of us > on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! > > I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, > especially in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module > Integration' so to say. > > The BMC CMDB while being 'OK' (not to take this completely off topic) > is such an overhead that a much simpler and "customer fitting design" > would be so much more performant to the ARSystem and other applications... > (none the less cheaper and easier to maintain at times!) > > At what point will BMC begin to limit customizations? Imagine if the > install of say Incident Management installed all objects in "Locked > Mode"... > > I wonder at times if BMC forgot the first envisioned cause for ARS... > Rapid Application Development, Flexible Workflow, ... > > Robert > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:28 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that > there are al
Re: Hypothetical
AR Server as middleware? Huh, it cant handle larger xml than a few Kb. Storing XML in a database as tables and fields(like its done in AR System) are not the prefered method when talking about performance. We all love the Malloc 300 errormessage when using webservices -- Jarl On 6/9/07, Chris Woyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's an opposing thought worth considering... Going back to the spirit of ARS being a Rapid Development Platform, why would BMC encourage development of the *same thing* that's out there already, regardless of who produced it? Many have lost sight of ARS as a development medium because it's been perceived as "just a Help Desk" for quite some time - and adding 50 more flavors of IT Request/Service Management won't do much to fix that perception. Requiring partners to produce products that are in non-competition is certainly part of the goal - money drives everything, as they say. However, it may also be construed as pushing the horizontal boundaries of the platform - pushing ISV's to take the product and move it into other arenas. There's obviously some interest in taking advantage of this facility, so instead of ITSM-esque applications, how about Fleet Management, Document Management, Middleware (Web Services + ARDBC + Workflow Engine is a dynamite combo for this), Financial Applications, etc. IMHO, those things add value to the platform - another ITSM product doesn't. A bigger pie provides revenue to BMC, no doubt, but it also gives the ISV a chance at more than crumbs. -Chris Woyton ATS, TuringSMI ps with regards to Robert's comment on CMDB, another thought comes to mind - I've often pondered using the OBJSTR sub-system as a development medium all on its own. Imagine this - you build a core set of Classes for a particular use, for example, Middleware/Data-Transfer. When a new Data Source becomes available, specialized a Sub-Class for it. Consumers of the data can then point to the specific Sub-Class or the root Parent Class (or at any point in the tree) depending on what data they need to use. Or, in a Request Management application, rather than providing different "Views" of an app to suit different groups, specialize a Sub-Class for that Group such that common data is shared, but specific data is segmented. Data sets could be used to support Tenancy in a model like this and the Recon Engine could facilitate inter-application integration (as well as exta-application). Maybe one of you hyper-motivated young guns can play with that idea (Reinfeldt already busts my chops for the 30 or so half-written emails to him I haven't had time to finish, so no way would I commit to prototyping that stuff..hehehe) :) -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Molenda Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:27 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of us on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, especially in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module Integration' so to say. The BMC CMDB while being 'OK' (not to take this completely off topic) is such an overhead that a much simpler and "customer fitting design" would be so much more performant to the ARSystem and other applications... (none the less cheaper and easier to maintain at times!) At what point will BMC begin to limit customizations? Imagine if the install of say Incident Management installed all objects in "Locked Mode"... I wonder at times if BMC forgot the first envisioned cause for ARS... Rapid Application Development, Flexible Workflow, ... Robert -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:28 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that there are already competing Service Management products out there, what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? Rick -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > huh .. > Land Grab.. &g
Re: Hypothetical
Here's an opposing thought worth considering... Going back to the spirit of ARS being a Rapid Development Platform, why would BMC encourage development of the *same thing* that's out there already, regardless of who produced it? Many have lost sight of ARS as a development medium because it's been perceived as "just a Help Desk" for quite some time - and adding 50 more flavors of IT Request/Service Management won't do much to fix that perception. Requiring partners to produce products that are in non-competition is certainly part of the goal - money drives everything, as they say. However, it may also be construed as pushing the horizontal boundaries of the platform - pushing ISV's to take the product and move it into other arenas. There's obviously some interest in taking advantage of this facility, so instead of ITSM-esque applications, how about Fleet Management, Document Management, Middleware (Web Services + ARDBC + Workflow Engine is a dynamite combo for this), Financial Applications, etc. IMHO, those things add value to the platform - another ITSM product doesn't. A bigger pie provides revenue to BMC, no doubt, but it also gives the ISV a chance at more than crumbs. -Chris Woyton ATS, TuringSMI ps with regards to Robert's comment on CMDB, another thought comes to mind - I've often pondered using the OBJSTR sub-system as a development medium all on its own. Imagine this - you build a core set of Classes for a particular use, for example, Middleware/Data-Transfer. When a new Data Source becomes available, specialized a Sub-Class for it. Consumers of the data can then point to the specific Sub-Class or the root Parent Class (or at any point in the tree) depending on what data they need to use. Or, in a Request Management application, rather than providing different "Views" of an app to suit different groups, specialize a Sub-Class for that Group such that common data is shared, but specific data is segmented. Data sets could be used to support Tenancy in a model like this and the Recon Engine could facilitate inter-application integration (as well as exta-application). Maybe one of you hyper-motivated young guns can play with that idea (Reinfeldt already busts my chops for the 30 or so half-written emails to him I haven't had time to finish, so no way would I commit to prototyping that stuff..hehehe) :) -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Molenda Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:27 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of us on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, especially in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module Integration' so to say. The BMC CMDB while being 'OK' (not to take this completely off topic) is such an overhead that a much simpler and "customer fitting design" would be so much more performant to the ARSystem and other applications... (none the less cheaper and easier to maintain at times!) At what point will BMC begin to limit customizations? Imagine if the install of say Incident Management installed all objects in "Locked Mode"... I wonder at times if BMC forgot the first envisioned cause for ARS... Rapid Application Development, Flexible Workflow, ... Robert -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:28 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that there are already competing Service Management products out there, what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? Rick -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > huh .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partne
Re: Hypothetical
Axton, I've thought about this too for a long time. Maybe your best bet in your situation would be to have an "Enterprise" type license to your product, so the client only buys the core ARS licenses. Your product price could be based on the size/revenue of the client. For that information, you can always go to the SEC site http://www.sec.gov/ (assuming your client sells securities in the US stock exchanges) and gather the client financial and HR information there. Guillaume From: Axton Sent: Thu 06/07/07 7:40 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical You can have it back, though you were right in your observations; I'm just thinking out loud. Just asking myself, what's my motivation to build (a business, a product...) on this platform through the preferred methods, e.g., as an ISV. Axton On 6/7/07, Scott Parrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can I have my previous post back? I obviously misunderstood what you meant by "enforce user fixed/floating licenses." You were actually referring to application user fixed or floats and I was thinking ar user fixed or floats. Oh well, never mind. Scott Parrish IT Prophets, LLC (770) 653-5203 http://www.itprophets.com -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. huh > .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that are > > similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > situation? > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > ___ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > > > > > -- > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting > was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
Axton: Here is a hypothetical answer... :-) Having been "hypothetically" through this, as of Version 6.0 there was a feature to be able to "integrate" your application with Remedy's Licensing module. I tried for about 2 months to talk to someone at Remedy to enable this to happen, but I kept running into roadblocks and never talked to anyone who could give me the necessary information to integrate Remedy's licensing feature into my own product. This might have changed since then, but it was pretty frustrating at the time. So... I gave up and developed my own "licensing" module for an application that will soon be released (it's not a competing product to any of Remedy's current products, but more of an add-in to any Remedy-based application). Terry -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:15 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Hypothetical Just a hypothetical question. Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. Partners are not allowed to write competing products. Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 situation? Axton Grams ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
Agreed, what I ment to say was that the tool is quite allright (at least from my perspective), the way you do stuff with it can make an application more or less complex. But I guess that's the general "good input, good output" rule :) Hugo On 6/8/07, Rick Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ** Yeah, it does say somethat that all of the competing products (ESS, ExpertDesk, Kinetic, Entuition, etc.) use tons less workflow to accomplish the same thing that ITSM does. Not saying that any of those are better or worse, just more tightly architected. *Rick* -- *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Hugo Visser *Sent:* Friday, June 08, 2007 1:30 AM *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG *Subject:* Re: Hypothetical ** What really disappoints me is that they are using vendor forms all over the place nowadays. That looks to me like "hey we couldn't do it in workflow, so we built a plugin". Doesn't that mean something? Oh and while I'm on rant mode, could we please have a "export but ignore all of the standard AR System forms and workflow" option? Back in the days we only had "Group" and "User'... Btw our "competing" application is called ExpertDesk, is very adaptable both through data and workflow. (and it has about 50% less workflow while providing enterprise featues). Hugo On 6/8/07, Robert Molenda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of us > on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! > > I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, especially > in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module Integration' so to > say. > > The BMC CMDB while being 'OK' (not to take this completely off topic) is > such an overhead that a much simpler and "customer fitting design" would > be so much more performant to the ARSystem and other applications... > (none the less cheaper and easier to maintain at times!) > > At what point will BMC begin to limit customizations? Imagine if the > install of say Incident Management installed all objects in "Locked > Mode"... > > I wonder at times if BMC forgot the first envisioned cause for ARS... > Rapid Application Development, Flexible Workflow, ... > > Robert > > -----Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:28 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that > there are already competing Service Management products out there, > what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've > architected the code better than BMC does? > > Rick > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're > SOL. > Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess > there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... > > Axton Grams > > On 6/7/07, patrick zandi < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ** > > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > > > huh .. > > Land Grab.. > > > > > > On 6/7/07, Axton < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that > > > are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > > situation? > > > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > > > > __ > > _ > > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > > ARSlist:"Where > > the Answers Are" > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting was > > submitted with HTML in it___ > > >
Re: Hypothetical
Yeah, it does say somethat that all of the competing products (ESS, ExpertDesk, Kinetic, Entuition, etc.) use tons less workflow to accomplish the same thing that ITSM does. Not saying that any of those are better or worse, just more tightly architected. Rick _ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hugo Visser Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:30 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical ** What really disappoints me is that they are using vendor forms all over the place nowadays. That looks to me like "hey we couldn't do it in workflow, so we built a plugin". Doesn't that mean something? Oh and while I'm on rant mode, could we please have a "export but ignore all of the standard AR System forms and workflow" option? Back in the days we only had "Group" and "User'... Btw our "competing" application is called ExpertDesk, is very adaptable both through data and workflow. (and it has about 50% less workflow while providing enterprise featues). Hugo On 6/8/07, Robert Molenda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of us on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, especially in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module Integration' so to say. The BMC CMDB while being 'OK' (not to take this completely off topic) is such an overhead that a much simpler and "customer fitting design" would be so much more performant to the ARSystem and other applications... (none the less cheaper and easier to maintain at times!) At what point will BMC begin to limit customizations? Imagine if the install of say Incident Management installed all objects in "Locked Mode"... I wonder at times if BMC forgot the first envisioned cause for ARS... Rapid Application Development, Flexible Workflow, ... Robert -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:28 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that there are already competing Service Management products out there, what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? Rick -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > huh .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that > > are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > situation? > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > __ > _ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > > > > > -- > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting was > submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org <http://www.arslist.org> ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org <http://www.arslist.org> ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org <http://www.arslist.org> ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" __20060125___This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
Sorry, I didn't include the sarcasm tag - didn't think it necessary. :) Rick -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Worthington Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical > unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? *snicker* -- Tony Worthington [EMAIL PROTECTED] 262-703-5911 Rick Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" 06/07/2007 08:27 PM Please respond to arslist@ARSLIST.ORG To arslist@ARSLIST.ORG cc Subject Re: Hypothetical I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that there are already competing Service Management products out there, what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? Rick -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > huh .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that > > are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > situation? > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > __ > _ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > > > > > -- > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting was > submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This is a transmission from Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and may contain information which is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution or use of the contents of this message is expressly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at 262-703-7000. CAUTION: Internet and e-mail communications are Kohl's property and Kohl's reserves the right to retrieve and read any message created, sent and received. Kohl's reserves the right to monitor messages to or from authorized Kohl's Associates at any time without any further consent. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
> unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? *snicker* -- Tony Worthington [EMAIL PROTECTED] 262-703-5911 Rick Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" 06/07/2007 08:27 PM Please respond to arslist@ARSLIST.ORG To arslist@ARSLIST.ORG cc Subject Re: Hypothetical I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that there are already competing Service Management products out there, what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? Rick -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > huh .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that > > are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > situation? > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > __ > _ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > > > > > -- > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting was > submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This is a transmission from Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and may contain information which is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution or use of the contents of this message is expressly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at 262-703-7000. CAUTION: Internet and e-mail communications are Kohl's property and Kohl's reserves the right to retrieve and read any message created, sent and received. Kohl's reserves the right to monitor messages to or from authorized Kohl's Associates at any time without any further consent. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
What really disappoints me is that they are using vendor forms all over the place nowadays. That looks to me like "hey we couldn't do it in workflow, so we built a plugin". Doesn't that mean something? Oh and while I'm on rant mode, could we please have a "export but ignore all of the standard AR System forms and workflow" option? Back in the days we only had "Group" and "User'... Btw our "competing" application is called ExpertDesk, is very adaptable both through data and workflow. (and it has about 50% less workflow while providing enterprise featues). Hugo On 6/8/07, Robert Molenda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of us on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, especially in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module Integration' so to say. The BMC CMDB while being 'OK' (not to take this completely off topic) is such an overhead that a much simpler and "customer fitting design" would be so much more performant to the ARSystem and other applications... (none the less cheaper and easier to maintain at times!) At what point will BMC begin to limit customizations? Imagine if the install of say Incident Management installed all objects in "Locked Mode"... I wonder at times if BMC forgot the first envisioned cause for ARS... Rapid Application Development, Flexible Workflow, ... Robert -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:28 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that there are already competing Service Management products out there, what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? Rick -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > huh .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that > > are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > situation? > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > __ > _ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > > > > > -- > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting was > submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of us on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, especially in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module Integration' so to say. The BMC CMDB while being 'OK' (not to take this completely off topic) is such an overhead that a much simpler and "customer fitting design" would be so much more performant to the ARSystem and other applications... (none the less cheaper and easier to maintain at times!) At what point will BMC begin to limit customizations? Imagine if the install of say Incident Management installed all objects in "Locked Mode"... I wonder at times if BMC forgot the first envisioned cause for ARS... Rapid Application Development, Flexible Workflow, ... Robert -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:28 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that there are already competing Service Management products out there, what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? Rick -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > huh .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that > > are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > situation? > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > __ > _ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > > > > > -- > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting was > submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know that there are already competing Service Management products out there, what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've architected the code better than BMC does? Rick -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > huh .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that > > are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > situation? > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > __ > _ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > > > > > -- > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting was > submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
You can have it back, though you were right in your observations; I'm just thinking out loud. Just asking myself, what's my motivation to build (a business, a product...) on this platform through the preferred methods, e.g., as an ISV. Axton On 6/7/07, Scott Parrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can I have my previous post back? I obviously misunderstood what you meant by "enforce user fixed/floating licenses." You were actually referring to application user fixed or floats and I was thinking ar user fixed or floats. Oh well, never mind. Scott Parrish IT Prophets, LLC (770) 653-5203 http://www.itprophets.com -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. huh > .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that are > > similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > situation? > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > ___ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > > > > > -- > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting > was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
Can I have my previous post back? I obviously misunderstood what you meant by "enforce user fixed/floating licenses." You were actually referring to application user fixed or floats and I was thinking ar user fixed or floats. Oh well, never mind. Scott Parrish IT Prophets, LLC (770) 653-5203 http://www.itprophets.com -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Hypothetical hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. huh > .. > Land Grab.. > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that are > > similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > > situation? > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > ___ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > > > > > -- > Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting > was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
Axton . . . As you well know, the ability to enforce user fixed/floating licenses is built into the AR System platform, which means anyone can build anything and force the use of a user license (fixed or float, doesn't matter). However, with deployable applications, you now have the ability to license the Application that you build. This is what's available to Partners/ISVs. I don't think anyone is "left out" in this scenario. It's just that those who are not partners or ISVs may not be able to enforce a license at the application level, which means they run the risk potential customers using their program for free. Scott Parrish IT Prophets, LLC (770) 653-5203 http://www.itprophets.com -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:15 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Hypothetical Just a hypothetical question. Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. Partners are not allowed to write competing products. Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 situation? Axton Grams ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, you're SOL. Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... Axton Grams On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ** Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. huh .. Land Grab.. On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just a hypothetical question. > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user > fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that are > similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 > situation? > > Axton Grams > > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" > -- Patrick Zandi __20060125___This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Hypothetical
Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. huh .. Land Grab.. On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just a hypothetical question. Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. Partners are not allowed to write competing products. Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 situation? Axton Grams ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" -- Patrick Zandi ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Hypothetical
Just a hypothetical question. Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce user fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. Partners are not allowed to write competing products. Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps that are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a catch22 situation? Axton Grams ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
