[Evangelism] Govt Tender and JCR standard

[Matt Hamilton]

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

[Alexander Limi]

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

Post by Matt Hamilton
Hi All,
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
--
Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd. Understand. Develop. Deliver
http://www.netsight.co.uk [phone]
Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting
_______________________________________________
Evangelism mailing list
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/evangelism

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/evangelism/attachments/20091214/b59a0634/attachment.htm

[Matt Hamilton]

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

[Alexander Limi]

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 <matth at netsight.co.uk>

Post by Matt Hamilton
Hi All,
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
--
Matt Hamilton matth at netsight.co.uk
Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd. Understand. Develop. Deliver
http://www.netsight.co.uk [phone]
Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting
_______________________________________________
Evangelism mailing list
Evangelism at lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/evangelism

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/plone-evangelism/attachments/20091214/b59a0634/attachment.html>