Yeah, its easy to migrate a Notes application, as long as you have no data, no code, no agents, no lookups and no workflow... Hang on while I just shut down all the domino servers.I laughed out loud that Paul's use of the analyzer finds that a standard out of the box discussion database is complexity "4" in terms of migrating to Microsoft's technologies. This is pretty funny -- when I see what Microsoft tells customers about migrating Notes applications, they often say that 60% of the Notes apps are standard templates and thus, easy to move. Maybe not.
Link: Pmooney.net: Microsoft Application Analyser 2003 for Lotus Notes >
Post a Comment
- 2
Axel | 12/1/2005 9:26:12 AM
Doesn't tell very nice thing about the simplicity of lotus standard templates (and that the work of the notes application developer was not a simple one, whatever Lotus have said over the years).
It should be a lot easier to build a app which ports automatically EJB or a spring app to another platform.
... and that says a lot about the route enterprise programming should take.
Simply because its *very* expensive to keep legacy apps alive until the next arrival of baby jeebus on our planet or port them by hand.
- 3
Mark Graham | 12/1/2005 12:13:04 PM
We have around 400 databases for 1200 users - NOT A SINGLE ONE is a standard template...
- 4
Simon Barratt http://apps.fmc.com/blog.nsf | 12/1/2005 1:06:24 PM
Ed, I think you have instituted a DDOS attack on Paul's site - I can't connect to it!
- 5
Mike Eckert | 12/1/2005 4:13:28 PM
@2 -- "Doesn't tell very nice thing about the simplicity of lotus standard templates" -- let me see if I understand your logic here...
So you're saying that if something that is as easy to create in Domino as a disucssion database based on a stock Lotus template (and fully supported by Lotus) is too complex for MS to convert into one of their 'solutions' then it shouldn't be in use in the first place??
Couldn't it be instead that there is no single solution from MS that can easily fill the same requirements as easily as Domino? (and not even require a developer to create?)
To me a Domino database built from a standard template -- even back from R3 or R4 (that still runs on current releases mind you) is not a 'legacy app' and is no more 'expensive to keep alive' -- if anything I've saved money by not having to rewrite it everytime I upgraded Domino, my operating system, or switched my platform (oh right, you can't do that last one with MS).
- 6
david racicot | 12/1/2005 4:52:27 PM
@2. Illogical. The issue is not that the Notes templates can't be converted easiliy (we could all build similair apps with a few forms and views, and quickly it would be too complex fro MS to convert). The issue is that executive decisions to convert are made based on the misinformation that it's easy to go from Notes to Exchange. There is huge value in the packaged templates and the simple Notes apps that are custom built, and then COST to do these in Exchange are being ignored. I did an estimate a few years back that pegged a migration of 300 apps at $5 million worth of effort (these were not all simple apps). Would any board of directors sign up for that one, just to change platforms? I'd say only if the new MS blinded executives passed on incorrect information like, it's no problemo to migrate. How about what you get for the effort? Nothing. Negative returns on capabilities and and lost time and money.
- 7
Axel Janssen | 12/2/2005 6:30:04 AM
@5: I am not saying that a standard template is difficult to use for an end user or someone who chooses create database from this template. But if you actually look at the code in the events of the discussion database or (perhaps even more) mail template. This code is quite complex and I've learnt from it a lot long time ago. So you just can't say that standard templates are "easy". On the contrary they often show a much deeper coding skill than much of the homegrown nsfs which use to attack us in the wild.
My point is that in my opinion it lacks a bit consistency that the author of this blog is constantly demanding open standards for Word Documents, but his own product is 100% proprietary in nearly anything, beginning with a very own & closed database model and ending with a super-complex RichText format. And lets not forget that lotus was proud of a "pragmatic, very own & ha-ha anti-layer" programming model for a very long time (this perception changed a bit in the last years).
Nevertheless those are the things which makes porting so difficult. And its nothing to be proud of.
- 8
Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 12/2/2005 6:39:22 AM
I personally have never written anything about open standards for Word documents. There are other IBMers focused on this, true, but can't say I'm one of them.
There are so many things about Notes that have been opened up through standards over the years that this "100% proprietary" assertion is complete bull. Perhaps you'd care to both apologize and revise?
- 9
Ben Rose http://www.jaffacake.net | 12/2/2005 6:44:59 AM
@7 Would the first download on this link be of use? { Link }
Surely if you can so easily export Notes documents to XML and import XML straight in it's not really that 'closed' a system.
Copy a contact in a Notes address book and paste it into another application, e.g. Outlook...it works - it uses the standard 'open' vcard format. Now try copy paste back...it doesn't work. No idea what Outlook puts on the clipboard but it doesn't open standard.
Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective, but I think it's fairly open in many areas compared to the competition.
- 10
Mike Eckert | 12/2/2005 9:18:49 AM
@7: Are you talking about application content, or application design? Is MS Access' jet engine for databases able to easily port to some other development systems? Or are you saying that the data in the database should easily be able to be extracted and imported into some other application?
If I have a visual basic application that stores data in a SQLServer back end db -- in many tables with complex relationships and referential integrity, database triggers, etc... What is the difference then if I make the same claim that I can't easily port this application to some other environment such as a Domino system? That the VB application uses a lot of complex code, and the data in SQLServer is in many tables with complex relationships... How is this any more 'open' than a Domino environment? Seems your same arguments can be applied right to this scenario.
I think you're mixing apples and oranges between application design (programming code & platform, etc.) with application content (contents of word documents or discussion database documents) like could be exchanged with XML...
- 11
Axel | 12/2/2005 6:07:38 PM
ok. I apologize. No system is 100% closed.
The webservices thing and the ongoing xml-ization actually all go in the right direction.
@10 You can exchange the implementation of your business logic (the vb program) with a java program, a .net program, a python or a ruby-on-rails program.
The triggers, referential integrity, stored procedures should only be used for logic closely tied to the data.
If the (rdbms)-database is designed smart way (often not the case) you get 2 advantages:
- You might easily re-use that-data logic
- you can easily exchange the business logic.
Though with web services we can now integrate a notes database in a cross middleware platform app, webservices and the resulting need for xml-processing are often more problematic from a performance standpoint than other means of cross middleware platform integration.
Axel
How about this for a laugh regarding Exchange 6 (code named waste of space - sorry Platinum):
{ Link }
Highlight: "Microsoft will also include an upgrade Wizard that will convert Lotus Notes applications to Exchange public folders."
That would be fun to see - I remember my Microsoft days and public folders were as useful as a chocolate kettle!