I am pretty new to Hybris. I am a bit curious about the activities that are taken care of by the production support team in Hybris. please share the information about what are the activities generally a production support person take care.
Maybe this can give you some idea:
Study guide for SAP Certified Support Specialist - SAP Commerce 1811: https://cxwiki.sap.com/display/education/Study+guide+for+SAP+Certified+Support+Specialist+-+SAP+Commerce+1811
I think the scope can be quite big, and it will depend on your contract / agreement. It could cover things like:
Handling day-to-day operations (e.g. backups)
Managing releases or patches
Managing users (e.g. Creating/Updating accounts manually)
Operating Backoffice (e.g. Reloading the widgets, etc) or PCM
Monitoring the system (e.g. Using DynaTrace)
Fixing performance issues
Fixing synchronization issues
Setting up the infrastructure (e.g. clustering, caching, logging, etc)
Being familiar with integration with other services (e.g. Data Hub)
Knowing how to indetify and fix issues / problems in general
etc
Related
I am trying to develop web application but I can't decide which framework to choose for front-end.
I could use Vue.js, Angular, React or Vanilla.js.
What are the parameters we need to consider while choosing front-end technology?
Stage of your business Your technology stack plays an important role at every stage of your business. If you’re just starting out, your primary goal must be launch the MVP as quickly as possible. Any language/framework/CMS tool that lets you put together a working prototype in the shortest possible time should be a good fit. WordPress is the ideal choice for a customer facing website or building a landing page as you do not require heavy programming knowledge. If your business is in the finance or banking space that requires security from the onset, opt for Java from the beginning.
Project requirement Before choosing any tech stack, understand the requirements of the project. Does your app require real-time functionality, such as a chatbot or live chat? In such cases, go with a tech stack that is good at concurrency, such as Node. If you’re a blogger who requires a functional website to increase conversions, WordPress or Drupal will work best. Is your frontend UI full of complex interactions? Then React or Angular may be good front-end tech stacks. Complete understanding of the project goals and business objectives along with the right selection of tech stack plays an important role in long-term success. Wrong selection may lead to financial loss.
Availability of resources The availability of developers who will create your product is one of the most influential factors defining your company's technology stack. Look whether your developers are willing and able to work within your chosen tech stack. Suppose you select a programming language not in common use such as Lisp, you will be hard-pressed to find programmers who know how to use it. If they do, they’ll charge a premium. Pick a tech stack that has a dynamic developer community. Commonly used programming languages will thrive in the near future and as a business owner it is easy for you to add new developers to the team.
Development and maintenance cost The technology stack directly influences development cost. There are a couple of factors to consider before picking up the right tech stack:
The cost of hiring a developer: Developers must be skilled professionals and the cost of hiring them varies based on the technologies they work with. Maintenance cost: The job doesn’t get over with the development completion of the MVP. Take into account the maintenance and upgradation cost. Consider sticking to open source technologies because they are cheaper and can be updated and changed without any restrictions.
Time to market Time to market is perhaps the most important for all startups. The faster you develop and launch your application, the more exposure you’ll get. Also, the less the time you spend developing initially, the more time you get to learn from the feedback of the users. Here is a list of the common issues you must consider while choosing a suitable tech stack: Third-party integration: Make sure the technology stack you choose allows third-party integrations, to integrate the features you need into your web or mobile application without reinventing the wheel. Developer availability: To turn your idea into a great web application, you need to have an experienced team of developers that can use the tools you choose and work with you in the long-term. Ask them if they will offer post-launch support. Testing: Make informed decisions based on how easy it would be to run tests on the chosen platform. No software product is developed perfectly the very first time. The chosen tech stack should allow you to fix bugs or tweak features easily without eating up a lot of time.
Scalability and security Products require a well-defined scalability matrix that works on both the scenarios either vertically or horizontally. Vertical scalability: lets you add more features on top of the core value proposition of your product. Horizontal scenario: lets you handle increased volume of users and transactions on the platform. Security Always make sure the application is developed keeping the best practices of security and threat mitigation in mind. Run security tests both on client and server side to eliminate the common security threats. The more robust your product is, the easier it becomes to sell in the market. At the end, make a choice that works best for your business. You can choose the technology to go with, based on your business goals, requirements and the resources you can afford.
there are plenty of articles on the internet if you search:
https://medium.com/unicorn-supplies/9-steps-how-to-choose-a-technology-stack-for-your-web-application-a6e302398e55
https://hackernoon.com/how-to-pick-the-right-web-technology-stack-for-your-product-f6d94440af2f
https://www.upwork.com/hiring/for-clients/how-to-choose-a-technology-stack-for-web-application-development/
etc.
For start, choose the technology you know better :)
Background: an international company with a federation model is transforming into Microservices due to chronic Monolithic pain. Autonomous teams with quick deployment is highly desirable. In spite of theory, services are indeed dependent on each other for higher functionality, but are autonomous (independently developed and deployed). Since this is a federation model and decentralized control, we cannot impose strict rules - just like the UN. Without a governance platform that will manage dependencies else due to the multiple versions in production in different countries, we foresee uncontrollable chaos.
Let's call set of Microservices that needs to collaborate a "Compatibility Set". A service can be deployed but may not satisfy the higher functionality in its Compatibility Set. For example MicroService A-4.3 is fully autonomous, deployed and working perfectly. However to satisfy BusinessFunctionality 8.6 it must work together with MicroService B-5.4 and MicroService C-2.9. Together (A-4.3 , B-5.4 and C-2.9) they form a "Compatibility Set"
There are two approaches to this dilemma. Microservice in real life where the rubber hits the road and the learning from experience begins...
Approach 1) Governance Platform
Rationale: Federal model in an International company in 100+ countries. Which means Central IT can lay down the model but individual countries can choose their own destiny - and they frequently do. It frequently devolves to chaos and the Central IT team is on the hook. DDD is the solution for an ideal world where version inconsistencies do not derail functionality like releasing services which do not fit into the Compatibility set, individually blameless but together they fall apart or result in flawed or inconsistent functionality.
There is no homogeneity, there isn't even standardization of terminology
Developers are mixed skill, many junior, and many learning reactive programming and cloud native technologies
Bounded Context heavily depends on Shared Vocabulary and it can get subtle, but this is impossible to enforce and naive to assume in an International, mixed skill, fragmented scenario with multiple versions running
Standardization on a Single Business Model is not realistic in such a heterogeneous system (but ideal)
How what is Central IT to do when they're held responsible for this Chaos?
Enforce a Governance Platform
Create a Microservices governance system or framework to enforce dependency management. It verifies and enforces at design and run time dependencies on a particular Microservice through a manifest and performs some checks and balances to verify the service implementations being offered - the "Compatibility Set".
Approach 2) Domain Driven Design (DDD)
DDD is about modelling domains that are constantly evolving, where domain experts (typically a business stakeholder, or perhaps an analyst) will work alongside developers to design the system. Within each domain, a ubiquitous language is formed, such that within that context, the same word always means the same thing. An important thing to realise is that in one part of your system, “Order” might mean one thing, it might mean for example a list of products. In another part of your system, “Order” might mean something else, it might mean a financial transaction that happened. This is where the model you describe can fall down, if my service needs to get a list of orders, perhaps there is a capability out there that supplies a list of orders, but which orders are they? The list of products or the financial transaction? Trying to coordinate as many developers as you have to all use the same language here is an impossible task that is doomed to fail.
In DDD, rather than trying to manage this at a system level and force every service to use the same definition of Order, DDD embraces the inherent complexity in coordinating very large deployments with huge numbers of developers involved, and allows each team to work independently, coordinating with other teams as needed, not through some centralised dependency management system. The term used in DDD is bounded contexts, where in one context, Order means one thing, and in another bounded context, Order can mean another thing. These contexts can function truly autonomously – you describe your services as being autonomous, but if they have to match their definition of order with the entire system by registering and supplied dependencies to a central registry, then really they are tightly coupled to the rest of the system and what it considers an order to be – you end up with all the painful coupling of a monolith, with all the pain of building a distributed system, and you won’t realise many of the benefits of microservices if you try to take this approach.
So a DDD based approach doesn’t ever try to take a heavy handed approach of enforcing dependencies or capabilities at the system level, rather, it allows individual teams to work without needing central coordination, if Service A needs to interact with Service B, then the team who manages Service A will work with the team that manages service B, they can build an interface between their bounded contexts, and come to an agreement on language for that interface. It is up to these teams to manage their dependencies with each other, at the system level things can remain quite opaque / unenforced.
Too often we see people implement “Microservices” but end up with a system that is just as, if not more inflexible, and often more fragile, than a monolith. Also called a "Minilith" or "Monolith 2.0" Microservices require a complete rethink of architecture and software development processes, and require not just allowing services to be autonomous and independently managed, but also for teams to be independent, not centrally managed. Centralising the management of dependencies and capabilities in a system is likely to be an inhibitor to successfully building a microservice based system.
Intelligent and Pragmatic comments invited...
Approach 1 (Governance) is pragmatic and tactical and intended to solve very real challenges. Question is - will it undermine the long term strategic DDD model of the Enterprise?
Approach 2 (DDD) is ideal and aspirational but doesn't address the very real challenges that we have to deal with right now.
Opinions? Thought? Comments?
I've seen multi-national companies try to cooperate on a project (or be controlled from a central IT team) and it's a nightmare. This response is highly subjective to what I've personally read and seen, so it's just my opinion, it's probably not everyone's opinion. Generally broad questions aren't encouraged on Stack Overflow as they attract highly opinionated answers.
I'd say DDD probably isn't the answer. You'd need a large number of a developers to buy into the DDD idea. If you don't have that buy-in then (unless you have a team of exceptionally self-motivated people) you'll see the developers try to build the new system on-top of the existing database.
I'd also argue that microservices aren't the answer. Companies that have used microservices to their advantage are essentially using them to compartmentalise their code into small, stacks of individually running services/apps that each do a single job. These microservices (from the success stories I've seen) tend to be loosely coupled. I imagine that if you have a large number of services that are highly coupled, then you've still got the spaghetti aspects of a monolith, but one that's spread out over a network.
It sounds like you just need a well architected system, designed to your specific needs. I agree that using DDD would be great, but is it a realistic goal across a multi-national project?
I also dealt with the problem described in the question. And I came up with an approach in which I use API-definitions like OpenAPI-definitions to check compatibility between two services. The API-definitions must be attached as metadata to each service and therefore it is possible to do the check at run and design time. Important is that the API-definitions are part of the metadata as well when the API is offered and when the API is used. With tools like Swagger-Diff or OpenAPI-Diff it is possible to do the compatibility-check automated.
I have this doubt since a while and today I'm not so strong a position, despite having taken one.
Whenever I develop or participate in the development of an application (WEB), typically treat security finger-and-nail, that is, we treat all processes related to security, sessions until encryption of passwords, etc.
I remember hearing someone say that it is always better to use a Framework (Spring, Apache Shiro, etc).
What is your suggestion?
Yes it is always better to use a framework rather then re-inventing the whole wheel again. I personally prefer Apache Shiro and have made customizations to suite my needs by extending classes provided.
REad here http://shiro.apache.org/
Some points to meke up your mids are:
Custom code equals custom vulnerabilities: With web applications you typically generate most of the application code yourself (even when using common frameworks and plugins). That means most vulnerabilities will be unique to your application. It also means that unless you are constantly evaluating your own application, there’s no one to tell you when a vulnerability is discovered in the first place.
You are the vendor: When a vulnerability appears, you won’t have an outside vendor providing a patch (you will, of course, have to install patches for whatever infrastructure components, frameworks, and scripting environments you use). If you provide external services to customers, you may need to meet any service level agreements you provide and must be prepared to be viewed by them just as you view your own software vendors, even if software isn’t your business. You have to patch your own vulnerabilities, deal with your own customer relations, and provide everything you expect from those who provide you with software and services.
Reliance on frameworks/platforms: We rarely build our web applications from the ground up in shiny new C code. We use a mixture of different frameworks, development tools, platforms, and off the shelf components to piece them together. We are challenged to secure and deploy these pieces as well as the custom code we build with and on top of them. In many cases we create security issues through unintended uses of these components or interactions between the multiple layers due to the complexity of the underlying code. When we can use for all other parts why not use for security and just keep and eye if any vurneability is found in that framework and respond by updating as community can update faster and better than by oneself.
I need your help for my question.
I need to build a web based application that should perform some activity of document management. I'm evaluating existing document management solution and I need a solution that expose api via rest or other protocol, so that I can interact with them from my application.
I read about alfresco, sharepoint and knowledge tree but I find difficult to understant prices for commercial use. Can someone help me with a comparison of function/prices for a commercial use?
Alfresco is available in two versions, Alfresco Community Edition and Alfresco Enterprise. Alfresco Community is under the LGPL license. Assuming you want to use it in-house (not distribute it to others), you can use + customise + extend Alfresco Community to your heart's content, without restriction or charge. (LGPL/GPL/etc are distribution licenses, not use licenses, so only kick in when you redistribute). However, Alfresco Community comes with no commercial support, only support provided by the community. For a lot of uses that's good enough, but for other cases you'll want to be able to ring someone for support / get hotfixes backported to your version / etc. In that case...
Alfresco Enterprise is paid for, coming with commercial support (including SLAs, pick up the phone and talk to an expert etc), along with a handful of features that matter in big deployments (clustering being one). Pricing depends on a few things, mostly around size of deployment and SLA, but for small deployments isn't too bad. For big deployments, it can be a huge saving over other systems! Give sales a call, they're very friendly, and only rarely buy me beer ;-)
If you don't want to run your own repo, there's also the Alfresco Cloud version, which comes with a public API. With this, Alfresco themselves run and maintain the instance for you, and you can use the public API to store / retrieve / manage / etc your content. It's much simpler to get going with! But you don't quite get as much control or customisation as with the on-premise versions.
SharePoint might already be covered by your existing Microsoft licensing deal, if you have one. If not, you'd need to decide between licensing on a per-server or per-user basis. See Microsoft pages like this to get an idea of the options, then ring your Microsoft sales rep to get an idea of the pricing. In many cases, you'd need to pay someone else for support, so you'd be back to a similar thing as with Alfresco Community vs Enterprise.
If you're not sure what system to go with, you might be safest and best off implementing your project using CMIS (Content Management Interoperability Services). This provides a common way to talk to content repositories, allowing you to store/retrieve/browse/search/permissions/etc irrespective of what the underlying repo is. Alfresco provide some information on it, and Apache Chemistry provides open source client libraries for most common programming languages, which makes getting started very quick. There's also an excellent book on CMIS which I can very much recommend! And not only because the authors of that have been known to buy me beer too... ;-)
My company is a custom development shop for a number of projects, some larger and some smaller. Currently we handle all of our client communication through email. So we email a design doc, they mark it up and send it back. Then we roll out a beta version of their product and they email us with any bugs, new features, etc. And so on....
As I am working on implementing a new bug tracking system (it looks like it will be Mantis right now), I got to wondering how we could best allow our customers an interface with our development process that would provide better tracking of feature requests and client submitted bugs as well as communicate our responses back to the client.
If anyone is aware of a a bug tracking system that does this exceptionally well I'd be interested to hear of that. Otherwise I'm just looking for some general guidelines or good business practices that have allowed your companies to interface effectively and efficiently with your clients.
UPDATE: My company uses a LAMPP stack and as we are a small shop with a limited budget we tend to stick to tools that are open-source and free.
Do most people either use Team Foundation Server to handle this or emails back and forth?
I think the key is to have the dedicated tracking system there for bugs/requests, and to establish a set process for communication. With that at minimum you will start getting consistent feedback. From there you can tweak it to get your specific needs.
As an aside, rather than just using e-mail for your communication, I strongly recommend going to smething like BaseCamp for a project management tool. I find that it helps greatly with keeping messages, documentation, and timelines communicated to the client.
If you are using Team Foundation Server, I recommend you to install TeamPlain Web Access. They allow you to expose a web interface to your TFS project. The only things left to do, is give rights to your client and a username and a password.
Otherwise, there is some paying tools like FogBugz. Of course, the principal is having to bug reporting tools directly linked to your Source Control so that the developers can easily fix bugs.
Although I know of no specific tools (at least no open source ones), I suggest that you setup a system which will cover your overall requirements gathering and implementation process. Requirements could be tracked in the system, which would also contain the design documents (which could be "checked out from" and "committed to" the system). This way, you would tackle the problem of having multiple revisions of design documents around. Addionally, the design documents and the requirements could be tracked easily. If this system were linked to your source code management system, you would additionally ease your development process/requirements tracking.
Another possibility is to use two products in concert, here's our current setup with a team of 12:
osTicket for incoming requests from clients
Allows for issues to be handled by support staff and bugs to be verified
Status can be checked with just an email address and ticket ID
Typically users don't submit detailed enough bug reports so is a good first step
redmine for development tickets
Ticket created by QA or a developer if issue is a real bug
Provides solid enough project and release management
Is a solid step up from trac and mantis (and provides migration tools)