It's been a while since I was in the business of answering RFPs, but here's
something I used in an RFP that asked for JSR168:
"Plone has a flexible and powerful framework for managing portlets. Portlets
can be developed and shared as separate components and have contracts with
their containing environment, similar to JSR168 and other Java-based
standards. Plone's portlet framework has focused on providing the needed
functionality for Plone. Complying with JSR168 was not considered a priority
in the initial implementation, but is something that can be added if the
deployment requires it. This will add additional development cost."
They usually just ask for these because they are "checkbox items" that they
have been told to ask for. If you can demonstrate similar functionality, and
have the door open for developing integration with Java-based standards
should they ever need it (which almost always ends up not being a priority),
they usually don't see it as a big deal.
Alexander Limi · http://limi.net
2009/12/14 Matt Hamilton <ma...@netsight.co.uk>
> Hi All,
> I've got a govt tender in front of me which is mandating:
> 1. Portal supporting full JSR 170 and a roadmap to support JSR 283 Content
> Repository API
> 2. WCM supporting JSR 168 and JSR 286.
> Which effectively mandates a Java solution. One other company has asked
> 'Will you still consider a CMS solution which is not Java based?' to which
> their (rather lame) reply was 'We have an open mind and will consider all
> responses equally'.
> Has anyone here managed to come up with a good bit of text which suitably
> answers their question? Something along the lines of 'Plone does not support
> JSR standards as it is not a Java CMS, but we do support equivalent
> standards such as....'?
> Matt Hamilton ma...@netsight.co.uk
> Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd. Understand. Develop. Deliver
> http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901
> Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting
> Evangelism mailing list
Evangelism mailing list