some components needing additional tweaking J
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of John Sundberg
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:23 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Request for Comments: multi-vendor vs single-vendor
System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of John Sundberg
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:23 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Request for Comments: multi-vendor vs single-vendor
**
What are the thoughts around multi-vendor vs single-vendor?
Michael
What are the thoughts around multi-vendor vs single-vendor?
Michael Poole - from our company recently wrote a good blog post on the subject:
http://blog.kineticdata.com/vendor-strategy/are-we-living-in-a-one-horse-town/
My observations are in-line with the blog post. A single-vendor approach
, safe, published, versioned
interfaces between ITSM (or other) apps running on the ARS platform.
Cheers!
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
From: LJ LongWing lj.longw...@gmail.com
Reply-To: arsl...@arslist.org
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:17:47 -0600
Richard,
The point of API interfaces
, November 04, 2011 9:26 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
This interface discussion is interesting and all , but I do not think
that the ITSM application will readily conform to this approach. I
think we are forgetting that ITSM is meant to be ITIL compliant. For
those who
: Re: Request for Comments
This interface discussion is interesting and all , but I do not think
that the ITSM application will readily conform to this approach. I
think we are forgetting that ITSM is meant to be ITIL compliant. For
those who have worked on the process side of ITIL - I am certain
November 2011 13:58
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
I would think that any interface designed would be agnostic to processes and
just be concerned with providing the services agreed upon in the contract. No
matter what happens behind the scene, the interface would handle
Pospisil
-Original Message-
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Cecil, Ken
Sent: 04 November 2011 13:58
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
I would think that any interface designed would be agnostic
MidTier..
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Axton
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 2:11 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
** I see limitations to the form approach that could be counter productive
Excellent Points...
Now how do we do that - that is the million dollar question.
They would probably have to rebuild the application from the ground
up!
I do a lot of RD in this space and we are working on a prototype
with
similar capabilities that would allow the client to do plug and play
How? is not a question I am in a position to answer. It's an idea, and I
like to think it's a good idea; that's why I threw it out here, to see what
others think. If it's good enough idea it will stick and be adopted in
varying degrees. It may not be adopted within the ITSM arena, but there
are
. That is just a business reality.
But from a technical design perspective, I think your RFC dart is in the
bullseye!
Cheers!
_
From: Axton [mailto:axton.gr...@gmail.com]
Sent: November 1, 2011 7:59 PM
Subject: Request for Comments
**
This is more a high level discussion
Yes - you have hit on one of the missing features of ARS - a lack of an API
for apps.
ITSM is using the natural way to use ARS.
ARS has no concept of an API - everything is open - everything is a global
variable (there is NO public/private API concept) all fields are fair game.
As a result - if
, 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
:* 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
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
Start of a solution: (suggestion)
Problem:
Push fields -- is wide open
Get fields (set field external) -- is wide open
Create 3 new form actions:
1) API Set fields (create)
2) API Update fields (modify)
3) API Get fields (read)
1) API Set fields...
Would be a list of create APIs for all the
that additional API calls would need to be defined as that
could result in reduced flexibility, however the interfaces would need to be
tightly documented.
Cheers!
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
From: Easter, David david_eas...@bmc.com
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:00:02 -0500
**
Just a quick comment
: 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
Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Richard Baird
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:46 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
Good to hear David!
Here is a suggestion off the top of my head. Perhaps to help with one of
Axton's
of the
interface that didn't support the new process.
Lyle
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
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
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
that didn’t support the new process.
** **
Lyle
** **
*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
] 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
at
the end.
Just my 2 cents.
Jiri Pospisil
LCH Clearnet
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Axton
Sent: 02 November 2011 14:53
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
** I think the cloud landscape is changing
*Subject:* Re: Request for Comments
** **
** I think the cloud landscape is changing that. Playing in the cloud
means working with other cloud based applications or SOA infrastructure.
Being a silo in the cloud is going to be a tougher sell than being an
easily integrated application
.
Lyle
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of John Sundberg
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:38 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
**
Lyle,
I have found the opposite to be the case. You desperately want
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
transition.
** **
Lyle
** **
*From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *John Sundberg
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:38 AM
*To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
*Subject:* Re: Request for Comments
!
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
From: LJ LongWing lj.longw...@gmail.com
Reply-To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:17:47 -0600
Richard,
The point of API interfaces is actually reduced flexibilitynot really
the point, but a byproduct. That reduced flexibility is actually
: Request for Comments
From: LJ LongWing lj.longw...@gmail.com
Reply-To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:17:47 -0600
Richard,
The point of API interfaces is actually reduced flexibilitynot really
the point, but a byproduct. That reduced flexibility is actually a 'good
every integration method/mechanism would have the same behaviour,
because it would be based on the same source (the Interface Form for the
specific interface)
Cheers!
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
From: Axton axton.gr...@gmail.com
Reply-To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 14:45:38
...) automatically create and publish the web service.
That way every integration method/mechanism would have the same behaviour,
because it would be based on the same source (the Interface Form for the
specific interface)
Cheers!
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
From: Axton axton.gr...@gmail.com
Reply
the same thing :)
-Original Message-
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Richard Baird
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 1:21 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
LJ,
Having done lots of OO stuff as well
allow filter workflow to run on it when it is accessed.
Granted this may be a bit more ambitious, but it would give fast performance
locally between apps on the same server/group and consistent local and
remote interfaces.
Cheers!
Subject: Re: Request for Comments
From: LJ LongWing lj.longw
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
