I agree with you on this one, Anne. Unfortunately, with the HP
acquisition of Mercury, it really points toward a management platform
solution making life difficult for the WSM vendors that don't have
their own registry / repository. They are the ones with the most to
lose if policy standards aren't established. BEA, Oracle, and Tibco
can still get by with an OEM'd product, as they really don't compete
in the management space (for now). Once the line starts to blur
between ESM (enterprise systems management) and BAM (business
activity management), the lines of competition may change yet again.
-tb
On Feb 8, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
Hence the need for really good search facilities in the repository.
One thing I predict in the market landscape report is convergence
with SDLC/IT management systems. Traditionally, a registry has been
supplied as part of the application platform, but I think that's
the wrong perspective to take. A registry and/or repository should
not be tightly associated with a single platform -- your goal is to
get everyone in the company to use it to enable collaboration
regardless of the platform they use to build systems. Repository
supports development, and then also plays an important role in
change control. Registry's role comes into play at the point you
stage a service from development into production, during the
configuration and provisioning processes. I think both registry and
repository should be integrated with the CMDB, but neither should
use a directory as their data store.
Anne
On 2/8/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The bit I'm not sure about in the registry/repository space is how
people will find things. Having a "central" repository or even a
federation sounds nice architecturally but the key is how will
people discover things and understand what is supported and by
whom. I've seen some companies create Repository administration or
librarian roles and rapidly these pieces become ignored and more
adhoc collaboration goes on.
Having control is a great thing, but the goal should be to get
people to find stuff first, then worry about control second, all
too often I've seen similar exercises fail because people put the
control hat on and decide that the easiest thing is if no-one finds
anything useful.
On 07/02/07, Todd Biske < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing that I've blogged about is whether or not the whole
registry/repository arena will bloom (?) into the broader area of
metadata management, which would then start to intrude on areas
such as the Configuration Management Database. It even creates the
possibility that Microsoft's answer to all of this would be
something rooted in Active Directory technology.
What's everyone's thoughts? Possibility? Is it a natural
extension of the market, or is this a big stretch?
-tb
On Feb 7, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Gervas Douglas wrote:
Looking forward this year, is there anything we should look for in
the vendor landscape?
Manes: Microsoft doesn't really have a registry today. Well,
actually they do. They provide one free of charge as part of the
Windows server, but it's what gave UDDI a bad name. It's a bare
bones implementation of UDDI version 2 and nobody in their right
mind should ever consider using it as a real registry. To date,
Microsoft hasn't been unwilling to give me any information about
future plans they might have in terms of registry/repository
components, but my guess is at some point they're going to do
something.
Then SAP hasn't really come out with a cohesive registry/
repository. Actually, let me say this, they've got way too many
registry/repositories, but they haven't come out with a good,
understandable strategy regarding SOA governance. They do have a
governance/risk management solution. They call it GRC, governance,
risk management, compliance. But that's not SOA governance.
So we still don't know what SAP is going to do. And we still don't
know what Microsoft's going to do.>>
