David, Having dealt with quite a bit of this in my own custom application, the problem with interface forms in general is that the application itself doesn't use them. Interface forms are a great thing, but when the application doesn't use those interfaces itself.you basically must maintain two branches of the code.the one that interacts directly with the incident form.and then the ones that interact with the incident interface form. I think the discussion is around the fact that if ALL interaction with Incident went through Interfaces, then ALL communication with Incident would be standardized, and other applications would then be able to interact in the same way that say.Change does.but Change doesn't use the interface form to create incidents.so it's not a standardized API.
It's really a divergence from the Remedy way of thinking..as said by a separate poster, when you want the data you just do a setfield with whatever qual you feel is right to get the fields you want.but if there was an API to 'get' that information, then the API would define what fields were required to get the information, and define what information is returned. This mentality would simplify the query structure, would make it so that indexes could be ensured to be used because you define which fields will be provided to get this data, and that's the only way to get it. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Easter, David Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:00 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request for Comments ** Just a quick comment - later versions of ITSM applications do have interface forms that are expected to be used to interact with the applications. These are used mainly by web service queries, but would be appropriate for any external communication into the application. Those forms are the recommended interaction point for external applications and insulate such programs from the version-to-version changes in the underlying forms. Please do continue the discussion - the ideas being expressed can certainly enhance and improve upon the architecture - but wanted to make sure folks know that the apps are already headed in this direction. -David J. Easter Manager of Product Management, Remedy Platform BMC Software, Inc. The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 7:40 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request for Comments ** Axton, I agree with a few of the other comments on this subject. I agree that it would be better for the customer for the reasons that you point out that you could 'mix and match' solutions as you saw fit. This type of approach could have eased the SRM discussion the other day because the user in that situation considered ITSM 'THE' solution.and while BMC I'm sure strives to make that the perception, we that pay attention know there are alternatives to the BMC ITSM Suite, and alternatives to specific modules where others see fit to produce those alternatives. So.while it may benefit the customer.I don't think it benefits BMC for exactly the same reason it benefits the customer. Because of this, I doubt that BMC is likely to move in this direction. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:59 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Request for Comments ** This is more a high level discussion and is concept/design oriented. Please feel free to chime in with your thoughts. I look forward to the collective wisdom of this list. I is my hope that a a constructive discussion can happen around this subject and the powers that be can gain insight gleaned from the discussion. First, a little background. I was in the Help Desk/ITSM space, left that arena for a few years, and have since returned. After working with the ITSM application for a few short months I am realizing how tightly ingrained these applications are with one another (incident, problem, asset, change, cmdb, etc.). The tightly coupled integrations make certain tasks exceedingly difficult, for example: - using an outside system for change management (or any other process, for that matter) - upgrading a single application in the stack (e.g., change management) - integrating outside applications with the ITSM applications Non-remedy or custom remedy applications are unable to easily or effectively communicate with the ITSM applications in the same way that the ITSM applications communicate with one another. Even different versions of the applications are unable to effectively communicate. Consider that each application facilitates a well defined process. Each process has inputs, outputs, and actions. The ITSM applications could have (and leverage, internally) interfaces to communicate their inputs and inputs, outputs, and actions. Java Interfaces are an implementation of this design pattern that are a prime example of the flexibilities that this can afford. Interfaces form a contract between the class and the outside world... -- http://download.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/concepts/interface.html Interfaces can be versioned (e.g., 'Create Incident' interface version 1 supports a field ,Priority; 'Create Incident' interface version 2 supports a new field, Urgency, etc.). By creating an interface (i.e., a contract) and back-end instrumentation to implement the interface, applications could be upgraded independent of one another; all the communicating components need to know is the version of the interface and that dictates the capabilities of said interface. With this idea, I am borrowing from the approach that many of the SOA stacks are implementing: One the most popular approaches for dealing with changes is versioning. Versioning assumes simultaneous existence of multiple (different) implementations of the same thing, with every implementation distinguishable and individually addressable. In the case of SOA, service versioning equates to coexistence of multiple versions of the same service, which allows each consumer to use the version that it is designed and tested for (see Figure 1). In this case, a new version of a service is created based on the requirements of one or more consumers, which can start using this new version immediately. The other consumers of this service do not need to switch to using the latest version immediately, but can continue to use the versions of the service they were designed for and tested with. They can switch to the latest version of service, based on their own development and testing schedule. Multiple coexisting versions of the same service in the system allows for the independent life cycles of services and their consumers and minimizes the overall impact of the introduction of changes. Although the necessity of such versioning mechanism may be obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with services, this topic still has not penetrated the mainstream of SOA publications and implementations. -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb491124.aspx#jour11version_topic3 A few key concepts here: - Interfaces and versioning - Well defined interfaces - Interface life-cycle (e.g., the last 3 major versions of the interfaces will remain supported, after which, they are deprecated) - Loosely coupled applications (to the extent that the applications could run on different physical servers/databases) that leverage only the interfaces the applications provide as a means of communication Such a change to the current paradigm would open the doors to a lot of things that are simply not feasible at this time, all of which start with better interoperability. This is something that is important in the cloud space. A proper implementation of the above ideas would lead an application that is easily pluggable into a SOA backbone so that the services the applications provide can be used by any other application that is able to reach out to the SOA backbone. I think that running each application within ITSM on separate servers would be a good gauge of an effective implementation of this paradigm. I look forward to your thoughts. Regards, Axton Grams _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
