Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of erik.engbrecht@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.241 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=M4SCOUVq1Wk6Te+em4RA4BrNydvH0CH9VI0SMABR9G2DdhfAutxT0uXo3QxLlU3qHo
         qrbgB4Y1sReGaaw2Er1MA6IoMm9Z5BblzRY5W5vw75EDko4PpdqKReWX/+PqaeD01NuO
         Iy+76aYlXS3iflw2fdG+eY032uxMKt8EUMsuw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f767f0600903020857o7c33015ci16076d4fa428f022@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29800118.1192441236012022476.JavaMail.servlet@kundenserver>
	 <f767f0600903020857o7c33015ci16076d4fa428f022@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:51:21 -0500
Message-ID: <9d8b82ea0903020951w3b423004yae9674c346f6eb1a@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The current state of ESME
From: Erik Engbrecht <erik.engbrecht@gmail.com>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0022152d695564a3fa04642677b1

--0022152d695564a3fa04642677b1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think focusing on "enterprise scale" is misleading.  Even if you consider
deployment across a really large enterprise with several hundred thousand
employees and assume they are all going to use it you are still left with
something a fraction of the scale of Twitter.  When you apply some reality,
an "enterprise deployment" even in a big company would initially consist of
hundreds of users, not thousands or hundreds of thousands.

But what enterprises do have is decades worth of infrastructure that has
basically been built through accretion with which you need to integrate,
rules per capita governing technology deployments approaching 2:1, and all
sorts of strange security requirements that may or may not be founded on
some rational thought.

So small and simple is key, and I'll throw in extensible and adaptable.

Now, about that infrastructure...  It would be nice to know how ESME fits
with common infrastructure:

Authentication - Active Directroy, Kerberos, LDAP, etc
Directory Services - AD / LDAP
Existing messaging platforms: Exchange, Office Communicator, BlackBerry, etc
Major enterprise systems:  SAP, Siemens PLM line (Teamcenter), doc
management such as LiveLink or SharePoint etc - especially older versions

Note that "fit" doesn't necessarily mean "integrate."  It can simply mean
being able to concisely explain how ESME relates to the other pieces.  You
can almost treat it as a checklist of soundbites.

-Erik

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Darren Hague <dhague@fortybeans.com>
> wrote:
> > Vassil,
> > Are you suggesting we should rename ESME to SME?  :-)
> >
> > I think the enterprise focus is a good one, but the message should be
> that "enterprise"
> > really means "behind the firewall", as distinct from the internet-based
> operators such as Twitter.
> > A school is also an enterprise...
>
> I'm with Vassil about many people's fear of most things labeled
> "enterprise something". The term is too often used to described
> needlessly complicated stuff.
>
> No need to change the name, and enteprise integration modules are
> certainly good, but ESME's "marketing materials" should make it clear
> that you don't need a cluster of expensive servers and expensive
> administrators to run it.
>
> IMHO, ESME should scale to enterprise levels, yet run happily on a
> netbook after a 5-minute installation by your average web programmer.
> If that's already the case, the world needs to know ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
>


-- 
http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/

--0022152d695564a3fa04642677b1--