Comments for Contentprise

Comment on Content Integration Vs Content Migration by Content Delivery Options in CMS « Contentprise

Content Delivery Options in CMS « Contentprise — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:52:25 +0000

[...] spoke about integration. Unfortunately, none of the MQ ‘leaders’ were convincing enough on CMS integration side, moreover, they were trying to propose their WCM product, inline with their Portal [...]

Comment on Web Experience Management and It’s Contribution to WCM by Content Delivery Options in CMS « Contentprise

Content Delivery Options in CMS « Contentprise — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:52:14 +0000

[...] Content Delivery on Mobile: If you are using WEM stack with Mobile delivery platform integrated with your content management system, it becomes [...]

Comment on Web Experience Management and It’s Contribution to WCM by Tony Byrne

Tony Byrne — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:33:34 +0000

Very nice post, Lokesh.

Comment on Content Integration Vs Content Migration by FatWire Content Collaboration: Extending WCM Realms « Contentprise

FatWire Content Collaboration: Extending WCM Realms « Contentprise — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:57:19 +0000

[...] community and gadget server integrated within the WEM framework, the realm of WCM is extended, so does the flexibility of retrieving and [...]

Comment on Content Integration Platform and Content Interoperability by FatWire Content Collaboration: Extending WCM Realms « Contentprise

FatWire Content Collaboration: Extending WCM Realms « Contentprise — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:57:10 +0000

[...] of FatWire Spark-pCM on Sun/Weblogic portals have a luxury of using various portlets which are tightly integrated with CS. Administrators could easily configure portlets based on editor’s needs. So, in this [...]

Comment on Sun-Liferay and Project WebSynergy by Lokesh Pant

Lokesh Pant — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:52:06 +0000

Not precisely in terms of so called “connector”, but Liferay 5.2 has come up integrations with almost all kinds of directory servers available in the market.
Also, In terms of Sun Access Manager, I am sure it must be doable as Liferay can be integrated with ‘openSSO’ which is nothing but Open Sourced Sun access manager.

Comment on Sun-Liferay and Project WebSynergy by elliott

elliott — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:44:34 +0000

Have you seen any progress on integration with Sun IDM.

Comment on Who should #fixwcm? by Mr. Huddle: The Easiest Way To Keep Up With Your Communities

Mr. Huddle: The Easiest Way To Keep Up With Your Communities — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:54:55 +0000

[...] quite a stir when I predicted the death of taxonomies. Taxonomists worldw… 5 Likes Who should #fixwcm? « Contentprise 4 Likes Blend Interactive – Five Tips to Getting a Good Response to a Content [...]

Comment on Who should #fixwcm? by Lokesh Pant

Lokesh Pant — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:59:37 +0000

I will not blame product vendor or even the “sales” folks, because that’s part of their job of getting the sales coming in whichever way it comes (right or wrong). As I previously wrote the #fix being -
“Customer should take help from analysts firms or consultants and include their IT staff to identify if the offerings from the vendors are technically correct”.

I agree, most of the time SI pitch-in when the “product” is already finalized. Even in that case, I(as SI) will think of revisiting the requirements and mapping them with the tools/functionality/API/methods the vendor is supposed to or have given/promised to the customer.

For the cases where SI is also responsible for proposing a product and solutioning around the product, then SI should be responsible for the outcome. [Some agreement or may be an aggressive SOW might work here]

Comment on Who should #fixwcm? by Shishank

Shishank — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:09:54 +0000

Lokesh I think the responsibility lies with actual product vendors and analysts to present the right picture and not just selling pitch. SI’s, in most cases, comes in when the product is already finalized and requirements are in place based on what the vendor projected about the product, without much say