Comments on: Documentum Renewal: Application Separation

By: Pie

Pie — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:46:42 +0000

Feel free.

By: Lora Littledeer

Lora Littledeer — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:41:09 +0000

I would like to use an image from your Word-Of-Pie website locatedin section titled “The Three Products”. I aim to use it in a PowerPoint presentation for a business course assignment. May I have your permission? How would I properly cite this image?

By: CMIS is Helping Application Separation, Today « Word of Pie

CMIS is Helping Application Separation, Today « Word of Pie — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:36:44 +0000

[...] the largest pains out there with ECM systems. We may actually be entering the time of true Application Separation! I’ll address some impacts shortly, but first, let’s look at what I saw over the [...]

By: EMC Admits it Needs Help, Partners with FatWire « Word of Pie

EMC Admits it Needs Help, Partners with FatWire « Word of Pie — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:18:01 +0000

[...] have WCM Application Separation! FatWire can evolve their offering as fast as they desire in order to keep up with the other [...]

By: Pie

Pie — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:07:00 +0000

They have been solving this problem with CenterStage. It is compatible from 6.0 forward, limited compatibility from 5.3. The loose coupling makes this feasible now.

By: S H

S H — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:07:43 +0000

While version separation is a good idea, I think one of the reasons it is kept in sync with core versions is to avoid confusion with customers. I bet you must have met hundreds of clients who complain about the fact that they do not know which version of application is compatible with what version of Content Server.
Imagine if Version 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 2.0,2.1 and 2.1.5 are all compatible with CS 7 but only 2.1 and 2.1.5 are compatible with CS 7.1. You see where I am going with this, it could make things a lot more complicated with a complex matrix.

Web Content management products (WP, IDS or SCS) I agree that these should be moved out of the release cycle, as they are almost always behind schedule. Thank god DCM is not in the picture anymore.

By: Tim Taylor

Tim Taylor — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:52:09 +0000

Hi All – in the same vein as my comment on the ECM definitions and CEVAs I think the word “application” is applied rather loosely in the ECM world.

So I’d be keen to see (and contribute) to a definition that seperates client components (my term for Taskspace etc) from line of business appications (CEVAs). Is Taskspace really an application>

Regards

Tim

By: Jed

Jed — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:26:40 +0000

Don’t bother with WCM at all, admit that the core product is the focus, that CentreStage is a good collaboration environment for all those old eRoom customers, but equip the core Content Server to be a nice player with other WCM systems. My last employer in the UK has gone this route with what they describe as an “unholy alliance” of Content Server and Drupal !

I know CMIS is not aimed at the WCM side of things, at least not in version 1.0 of the standard, but with CMIS, various API’s and web services via DFS, take the ‘federated’ approach and let the customer base integrate their preferred ‘best of breed’ WCM application.

By: Pie

Pie — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:56:31 +0000

Thanks for both of your comments. I agree that the pricing is getting out of hand from a numbers perspective, and from the sheer number of items. I actually talked about that today.

I agree with your assessment with where Workflow manager fits into the equation. It is adequate, and should be included. Many client don’t need full BPM, so I don’t have a problem with that being separate as long as a long list of other items are included.

Oh, as for upgrades, they will always be a pain. That is the price of a system that is so old. On the otherhand, they don’t re-architect it every other year.

By: Pie

Pie — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:52:58 +0000

Basic workflow is already in there. If you were told otherwise, go hunt down that sales person. I have no problem paying for advanced BPM. Forms I’m on the fence with and I’ll lean towards EMC on this for the time-being. I see that as an interface that isn’t universally needed.

By: John W

John W — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:45:24 +0000

I certainly agree with adding in BPM. Workflow Manager is outdated, and BPM is the superior tool. I used to refer to BPM as WfM++, but someone corrected me the other day with the rational that BPM is actually the real WfM and WfM is BPM–.

As for the pricing, I’ve gotten to the point where I have to wonder if EMC isn’t trying to price Documentum in a way to kill it. They certainly make the more usable features prohibitively expensive. I don’t see how that “competes” when people don’t, won’t, or can’t buy it at that price point. Undercut and get market share… isn’t that how it’s done?

By: dozyarmadillo

dozyarmadillo — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:44:57 +0000

While sticking RPS into core, add in BPM & Forms as well. It seems ridiculous that usable workflow is a separate, chargeable item.

By: John W

John W — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:57:46 +0000

It may be hard, but it would resolve some degree of headaches, especially where upgrades are concerned. At this point, Documentum is terribly heavy with each release; and with some releases it is pretty obvious certain components only changed in version number.

This seems to be a penalty of trying to do it all. It is attractive from a marketing point of view, but when it turns the product into an obese creature to wrestle with each release, it isn’t so attractive from an end consumer/implementer point of view.

By: Pie

Pie — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:50:04 +0000

That really depends on the features that the application is using. New Enterprise 2.0 features may be stored as XML. No platform changes required. From a WCM perspective, a lot of focus is in the design and interaction of the website. The role of the repository doesn’t change that much. It is the application that is changing.

It isn’t something I would do with Records Management, but many of other applications I would.

By: Marc Brette

Marc Brette — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:37:36 +0000

Higher application release frequency is easy.
Complete independence though is costly. It requires multiple version of the application. One that benefit new platform features and one that do not. This is doable but at some point maintaining application consistency is hard.