portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ming Fai" <ming...@hongkong.com>
Subject RE: IBM Portal Server
Date Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:23:28 GMT
first of all, I state once again that I have never tried IBM's Portal server
myself. If Thomas Schaeck didn't say it is better in scaliability, then it
is not.

My ground to believe it is better in scalability is that, to an extent, it
seems the IBM Portal Server is integrated with Websphere Application Server,
that we can reasonably draw a conclusion that it is more scaliable. Besides,
it is hard to imagine IBM would produce a commercial software that works in
presentation layer but does not support load balancing / web farm by some
means.

the following is quote from the IBM guy:
>Regarding the strengths of WPS - WPS 1.2 that is available since this
>summer has the new Portlet API (that we also contribute to JetSpeed),
>performance and scalability-optimized multi-device page aggregation,
>... ...
so, it's not my job to explain any more. :-)

regards,
mingfai


-----Original Message-----
From: mmosttler@bco.com [mailto:mmosttler@bco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 12:44 AM
To: jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: RE: IBM Portal Server


Could you expand on your statement "better scaliability"  I am not sure I
see why the scalability would be different.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ming Fai [mailto:mingfai@hongkong.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 9:03 PM
To: jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: RE: IBM Portal Server


It all depends on your requirement. I see the issue in this way: Jetspeed
provide certain functionalities, IBM portal server provides additional
features. (and cost a lot more, certainly) The question is whether the
additional features provide sufficient Ruturn On Investment (ROI).  If the
additional features are in your requirement, then it may meet the ROI and
you should go with IBM.  Otherwise, if you think the additional features do
not outweigh the cost. (i.e. it doesn't meet the ROI) Then you give reasons
for why the additional features are not useful, why and how Jetspeed provide
sufficient features, or why IBM provides good extra features but is too
expensive etc.

In fact, you've presumed it is better for your manager to pick Jetspeed
instead of IBM. I personally love Jetspeed more than IBM's portal server.
But in business scenario, I would consider more, I believe IBM's product
provides shorter deployment time, better scaliability, easiler
administration, better integration w/ IBM's products etc. If these are your
requirement, then it may be better for you to turn to support your boss.
Otherwise, just give him the reasons and help him to safe $!

pls take a look at Thomas Schaeck's message about IBM's features or call an
IBM sales to explain to you.

regards,
mingfai

-----Original Message-----
From: RASouza@statestreet.com [mailto:RASouza@statestreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 2:19 AM
To: jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Cc: jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: IBM Portal Server



My manager is trying to push IBM's Portal Server which uses Jetspeed and
Turbine. What argument can I make with him not to go with this product and
to use Jetspeed alone?

R


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message