I think a plain XML, one level, can be quite huge. But with complex XMLs, grand parent - parent - child relationship the server has enough to process. Every child will create a "filter"(named arserverfilter) that push the child to its form. I also see in server logs that a filter named arserverfilter is missing. Think this happend when the server are under a heavy load. It may be solved with a true multithreaded mid-tier.
I think XMLGateway from http://www.javasystemsolutions.com/ is a much better product than mid-tier for xml processing. -- Jarl On 6/11/07, Evans.Randy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't do that to me. You had me scared. Were hoping if I can get things figured out to be passing our IT Fulfillment records to SAP for approvals and back to us for fulfillment. -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Hypothetical A few Kb was just a joke. But with messages 100kb ++ and 10-15000 messages a day the server did malloc quite often... This was on solaris with oracle. -- Jarl On 6/11/07, Grooms, Frederick W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jarl, > What platform are you on? I routinely have 60 - 100 Kb XML transactions with no memory errors. (I am on Sun with Oracle) > > Fred > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 12:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > AR Server as middleware? Huh, it cant handle larger xml than a few Kb. > Storing XML in a database as tables and fields(like its done in AR > System) are not the prefered method when talking about performance. > > We all love the Malloc 300 errormessage when using webservices.... > -- > Jarl > > > On 6/9/07, Chris Woyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's an opposing thought worth considering... > > > > Going back to the spirit of ARS being a Rapid Development Platform, > > why would BMC encourage development of the *same thing* that's out > > there already, regardless of who produced it? Many have lost sight > > of ARS as a development medium because it's been perceived as "just > > a Help Desk" for quite some time - and adding 50 more flavors of IT > > Request/Service Management won't do much to fix that perception. > > > > Requiring partners to produce products that are in non-competition > > is certainly part of the goal - money drives everything, as they say. > > However, it may also be construed as pushing the horizontal > > boundaries of the platform - pushing ISV's to take the product and move it into other arenas. > > There's obviously some interest in taking advantage of this > > facility, so instead of ITSM-esque applications, how about Fleet > > Management, Document Management, Middleware (Web Services + ARDBC + > > Workflow Engine is a dynamite combo for this), Financial Applications, etc. > > > > IMHO, those things add value to the platform - another ITSM product doesn't. > > A bigger pie provides revenue to BMC, no doubt, but it also gives > > the ISV a chance at more than crumbs. > > > > -Chris Woyton > > ATS, TuringSMI > > > > ps with regards to Robert's comment on CMDB, another thought comes > > to mind - I've often pondered using the OBJSTR sub-system as a > > development medium all on its own. Imagine this - you build a core > > set of Classes for a particular use, for example, > > Middleware/Data-Transfer. When a new Data Source becomes available, > > specialized a Sub-Class for it. Consumers of the data can then point > > to the specific Sub-Class or the root Parent Class (or at any point > > in the tree) depending on what data they need to use. Or, in a > > Request Management application, rather than providing different > > "Views" of an app to suit different groups, specialize a Sub-Class > > for that Group such that common data is shared, but specific data is > > segmented. Data sets could be used to support Tenancy in a model like this and the Recon Engine could facilitate inter-application integration (as well as exta-application). > > > > Maybe one of you hyper-motivated young guns can play with that idea > > (Reinfeldt already busts my chops for the 30 or so half-written > > emails to him I haven't had time to finish, so no way would I commit > > to prototyping that stuff..hehehe) :) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Molenda > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:27 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > > > > > Axton - you think too much outside the box :) Just like so many of > > us on this list :) :) We need more of this thinking again!!! > > > > I have actually been wondering about this for some time now, > > especially in the area of CMDB and 'Re-development' or 'Module > > Integration' so to say. > > > > The BMC CMDB while being 'OK' (not to take this completely off > > topic) is such an overhead that a much simpler and "customer fitting design" > > would be so much more performant to the ARSystem and other applications... > > (none the less cheaper and easier to maintain at times!) > > > > At what point will BMC begin to limit customizations? Imagine if the > > install of say Incident Management installed all objects in "Locked > > Mode"... > > > > I wonder at times if BMC forgot the first envisioned cause for ARS... > > Rapid Application Development, Flexible Workflow, ... > > > > Robert > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:28 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > > > I don't know what BMC's criteria are for approval, but I do know > > that there are already competing Service Management products out > > there, what's the point of a few more, unless someone thinks they've > > architected the code better than BMC does? > > > > Rick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:24 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Hypothetical > > > > hmmm... probably if you write it first and big brother likes it, > > you're SOL. > > Prepare to be bought or dropped (aka, prepare to be boarded)? I > > guess there's money to be made there, but geez, what a disappointment... > > > > Axton Grams > > > > On 6/7/07, patrick zandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ** > > > Woo, So first inventor win's ? as long as you pay and have it locked. > > > > > huh .. > > > Land Grab.. > > > > > > > > > On 6/7/07, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Just a hypothetical question. > > > > > > > > Deployable applications, which include the ability to enforce > > > > user fixed/floating licenses, are available to partners/ISVs. > > > > > > > > Partners are not allowed to write competing products. > > > > > > > > Does this mean that companies/people attempting to write apps > > > > that are similar in nature to those that Remedy offers are in a > > > > catch22 situation? > > > > > > > > Axton Grams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Patrick Zandi > > ______________________________________________________________________ > _________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
_______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
