Talk:IBM WebSphere

Untitled

This article has not been written to be understood. It is confusing, it does not indicate how WebSphere is suppose to work, it rather lists a bunch of parts or subproducts that have not meaning to the reader.

I agree completely. After seeing IBM's own site dealing with WebSphere, and finding nothing except enterprise-style yammering, I was really hoping Wikipedia could do a better job. Wvxvw (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Competing products/comparisons ?

So basically, it's a development platform like PHP or ASP ?

Not at all, it's a set of middleware components that are built on top of another development platform.

I've spent the last year and a half trying to develop middleware with different components and they're all rubbish, bar MQ. The concepts, although well thought out, are generally fundamentally flawed, but the part that makes them difficult to use is the fact they're so unstable.

As far as I'm aware, Microsoft's BizTalk server is a similar competing product. From the above, what is "MQ"?

Websphere MQ is a messaging engine 84.51.146.100 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give an example or two of how it's used? Badgerclark (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, competing products are Jboss and Tomcat --OmadaXam (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Heading "Headline text"

What does the heading "Headline text" mean? Is this a place holder for a real heading or is it a correct heading relating to WebSphere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.143.143 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge IBM RFID Information Center into this article

The article IBM RFID Information Center contains very little concrete information apart from a large collection of external links, most of which are duplicates or near duplicates of ones in this article. I suggest that the small amount of information in the RFID article could be easily merged into the main WebSphere one. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, this is my first attempt creating a wikipedia page. THANK YOU Mighty Warrior for your pointer in developing under my profile first and then moving to this page after I've got the info... however, I was hoping that the community effort aspect would take over and I wouldn't be the sole contributor to this article, but it looks like I'm the only one with any real motivation to work on this. So to the powers that be, will you please give this article till Wednesday of next week before merging or moving (and I will be working till then on adding the bulk of info that will qualify this article to stand alone)?

Thx. Rebekahalnablack (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem to allow the IBM RFID Information Center article to develop for a while, Rebekah. I'll tag it as "under construction" (although this is liable to be removed if no work actually gets undertaken!). My comment about starting in user space was really for any future articles that you might want to develop on a piece-by-piece basis. Note that there still might be a case for merging the content into IBM WebSphere, even when the article is expanded. It all depends on whether there is consensus for the article to stand on its own, or not. That's really what this discussion hopes to decide, one way or the other. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mighty Warrior, what are the criteria for merging the IBM RFID Information Center article into IBM WebSphere? After some major revisions over the last week, the article is looking like it could stand alone now. I want to avoid going overboard by populating the article with too much information, but it is a very complex product, and it seems like I could always add more! Please let me know if there are still major gaps in the article or any other feedback. Thx! Rebekahalnablack (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It does look like the article is now contains sufficient information about the subject itself to require a separate article. I am therefore withdrawing the merge suggestion, especially since no-one else has volunteered any opinion on the matter. I would still recommend that a link is placed in IBM WebSphere to the new article, and other opportunities to link it into articles are explored. Care must also be taken not to let the new article sound too much like an advert or sales brochure. Regards. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

removing Websphere on products name

The article is about WebSphere and therefore the products in them are already understated by the headings. I don't think we should add them, it is unncessary and make it look like a form of advertising. The ones that include both Websphere and other non-Webpshere branded products, I didn't remove them for easier understanding. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, if the position is "Websphere Developer" then it should be called that for disambiguation purposes, the exact reason why we refer to MSCEs as MSCEs and not just engineers. It is only advertising if it says, "Become one now! Sign up at webspheredeveloper.com," which it clearly does not. I might go and ask some of those who have contributed to this article for their opinions. Rilak (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of an article is to introduce and explain about the products and maybe include things like scope, goals...etc. In the article if we remove the WebSphere suite name, it is more clear and precise about what the product focus on, the suite name is not important. Abbreviations are made for easier "reference," because they are thousands of products, certifications, exams...etc, therefore we refer as by their company name, suite name or commonly understand name, hence in templates that is why people reduce things like LLC, Corporation, JT...etc. Suite name serve a good purpose in communications, but not explanation. Similar in essay you say "The man is made of clay" than to say "I think the man is made of clay" (the word I think is not necessary, because it doesn't serve as any support nor explanation and in the case of the article it also doesn't serve the purpose of explanation). --Ramu50 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it more precise to use a name that is not used? Take "Portlet Factory" for example. How is it possible for someone unfamiliar with WebSphere to determine, from context, that "Portlet Factory" refers to "WebSphere Portlet Factory" when it is not explained in the article or linked to the relevant article stating the full name? (Note that it was linked in previous revisions.)

When using common names, the full name is also mentioned, not completely ignored. The article on Silicon Graphics states that the company is called "Silicon Graphics, Inc." and then explains that the company is commonly referred to as "SGI" and only then proceededs to use the common name through the rest of the article as per MoS.

Further more, common names have to verifiable. Using Silicon Graphics, Inc. as an example, there are many reliable sources that refer to the company as "SGI". In fact, the only authoritative source on this matter (the common name of this company), Silicon Graphics, Inc., refers to themselves as "SGI" in their communications where possible. Rilak (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Palm OS

Also in the WebSphere branding was the Micro Environment Java Virtual Machine for Palm OS. Hasn't been updated since version 5.7.2 was released circa 2007, 5.7.1 was released in 2005. Bizzybody (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WebSphere compatibility matrix

The section "WebSphere Compatibility Matrix" which is specific to WebSphere product was moved to the corresponding "IBM WebSphere Application Server" article which is specific at the WebSphere product, whereas this page is about the WebSphere brand.

Also, columns of the table were re-arranged to have the most modern version at the left of the table and not at the far end.

91.178.115.186 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Ben

External links

The amount of external links in this article is really kind of ridiculous. I mean, I think the idea of an exhaustive list of the products within the Websphere brand is way too much regardless, but having external links for each one is in clear opposition to the guideline on external links, which says that they shouldn't be used within the body of an article. They need to be removed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Revisit deletion?

There was a strong "keep" consensus for this article six years ago, rejecting the notion that the product's entry here was prophetic rather than encyclopedic. But now, the history is a single sentence, 95% of the article is a product catalog, and there are no references, just a single "further reading" entry. I've done a cursory Google search to find reliable sources and only find advertising. Is this article as pointless as it looks to me? Should it just redirect to the listing of IBM products? Or is there some potential?--~TPW 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)