James 的个人资料James's Space照片日志网络更多  |  工具 帮助 |
|
|
12月13日 MOSS licensingBy and large MOSS licensing was pretty much what we all expected in terms of options around SKUs like search and forms, and processor vs. server/CAL licensing. Many Microsoft customers looking to upgrade from the 2003 wave of SharePoint / MCMS to Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 should not find anything unduly expensive or difficult in the updated licensing model - and hey, if it's a bit more expensive then believe me it's worth it in functionality enhancements. However, one group of existing Microsoft customers may face a massive license pain point... those that were using MCMS 2002 as an intranet, or more accurately, to host content for internal users only.
The reasons for this being a pain?
This is a BIG DEAL. We have at least one customer who may consider moving off the MS stack as regards web content management as a result. Why, oh why, couldn't Microsoft just let organisations make the choice, as they do today with SQL Server, between CAL and processor licensing? It just starts to look like a device to squeeze more money out of medium -> large customers... or maybe a less cynical take would be that it's to up the profile of MOSS in line with the cost and so force businesses to realise the potential value in the product? Who knows, but there are alternative approaches that would have made my life easier :). Incidentally, if you have Software Assurance on MCMS and you're in an intranet scenario, you may be okay. This page mentions an upgrade option for this scenario that translates a MCMS processor license into a MOSS server / CAL license(s): http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver/HA101655351033.aspx (look under upgrades). However, I can't find any information on the detail of this yet, but if I do then I'll post it here. Update: Apparently for customers with MCMS Enterprise Edition and Software Assurance, 1 processor licence equates to 250 SharePoint Enterprise CALs - if this isn't enough then you'd need to have further discussions with Microsoft. If you don't have SA, there's no upgrade option. 11月24日 BDC is not SO (I think)I was having a small debate recently about whether BDC (Business Data Catalog in MOSS - SharePoint 2007) can be considered part of a SOA... he mentioned BDC as being related to SOA and something inside me kind of twinged in response. To me, BDC breaks various SO concepts and implies a tight dependency between the integration with SharePoint and the implementation of the line of business app.
If you retrieve directly from a database using BDC, then obviously the integration is tightly coupled to the line of business application implementation + there's no service, obviously not SO. On the other hand, even if you retrieve the information from a Web Service, what I've seen of the way in which BDC is implemented suggests to me that you would normally end up having to write the Web Service in a way that directly exposes information about the implementation of the application, and that is designed to support SharePoint's use of BDC. So this seems to me to be not autonomous nor, again, loosely coupled. This doesn't surprise me though given what BDC is designed to achieve. It's one integration mechanism designed for a particular set of SharePoint functionality - hence you will end up writing web services purely to support BDC. Nothign wrong with that, it just doesn't seem SO to me.
But maybe I'm wrong or need to look at the web services support more closely. Anyone want to comment? 11月17日 EVO platform appears bit by bit...In case not everyone's already noticed, many of the core components of the new releases of Exchange, Vista and Office ('EVO') are now becoming available:
|
|
|
