On 6/4/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 6/3/07, Chris Custine <chris.custine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have been thinking about a web based admin app for quite some time as
> > well...  I think maybe we are even talking about 2 different things here
> > (basic internal admin app and larger enterprise admin app).  I have even
> > gotten to the point of thinking that the basic embedded Jetty app that you
> > are already discussing should be part of the OSS project, but maybe a larger
> > Enterprise app is a seperate thing altogether, almost like Studio (maybe
> > Studio Web).
>
>
> Yes this is certainly a possibility.  Let's not close the door on this but
> I do not think such a
> large application should be hosted directly on the ApacheDS server's Jetty
> service.  Perhaps
> The hooks could be placed on the ApacheDS instance via web services or
> some other
> management interface like LDAP or JMX.  Then this studio web app could be
> an application
> deployed on a standalone web server.
>
> I think we are obviously occupied with many other more important things at
> > the moment, but I can tell you that my experience with client preference has
> > been the opposite of yours.  My larger clients would count a web based admin
> > app as a postitive feature, and an installed GUI as a negative in product
> > assesment.  This is mainly due to the strict deployment and evaluation
> > policies for desktop applications since neither of them allow direct install
> > of software and require automated software push for inventory and license
> > control, even for niche admin apps like this.
>
>
> You're totally right Chris.  Big companies lock down desktops but do they
> do it for those
> select few power users like administrators that will be the ones using the
> studio application.
>
> My reason for not thinking too highly of using a web based administration
> application
> stems from this fact.  Of the population of employees in the company a
> very small fraction
> of power users (administrators) will be using this application.  From my
> understanding
> one of the main strengths of a web based application is in providing
> access to a large
> population of users without having to deploy it on their desktops along
> with centralized
> administration and maintenance.  Here we're going to only have a small
> population of users
> and hence I feel a web application might be overkill.
>
> There might be another slightly larger population of non-administrator
> type users like
> developers which may use Studio to develop schema or stored procedures.
> Most companies
> now use Eclipse for development.  Studio as an eclipse tool can be added
> to an existing
> Eclipse installation as a set of plugins without requiring the need for
> such approvals to install
> new applications.  Meaning the plugin update process in eclipse will not
> require the developer
> to request the installation of a new application on their workstation.
>
> But I do agree some organizations will still insist on having a web based
> platform for this.  This
> is why I'm not abandoning the idea but for me it is merely a matter of
> prioritization.  I think we
> can get by with an Eclipse RCP application for a while.  Having a web
> based Studio will be
> a great thing to have but not required.
>
> I think SUN is writing a OpenDS web application because they're stinkers
> when it comes to
> using Eclipse.  This is one of the reasons why they chose a web based
> administration console
> since they X'd the option to use eclipse.
>
> Also note that building a Web application verses a fat client is a bit
> more involved.
>
>    (1) server apps must run forever and leaks can add up whereas client
> apps are restarted
>    (2) lots more moving parts in a webapp
>    (3) webapp dev is less agile than fat client development
>
> I think if we mature the RCP based Studio fat client rapidly through user
> input and solidify the
> feature that are deemed the most useful then we have a great set of
> requirements already
> in hand for building the web based studio application.  Knocking it out
> then will be much easier
> since the requirements are clear and all we need to do is apply some
> mechanics to whip it
> together.
>
> Anyway, this is a complicated discussion, but at some point I would like
> > to re-visit this when we can give it more time.  I have a long list of
> > features that I have been building in my head, so maybe at some point we can
> > document some ideas and evaluate it from there?
>
>
> Sounds good and I hope you don't think I am shooting down your idea.  I do
> think it is a good one but it just comes down to prioritization, time to
> market (can't believe I just used this term on an OS mailing list :) ), and
> the impact that will result.  I do want to do it though but the when and the
> how is what I am concerned with.
>

No, I know you aren't shutting it down.  I also think that some of the
features I am thinking about are crossing over into the IDM realm anyway
(delegated user management, custom user friendly screens, etc.), so thats
why I think it is a pretty big discussion.  I just didn't want to leave
Ersin stranded on his first email since I had some similar ideas.

Some day....  :-)

Chris

Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>