Although I originally planned / promised to write about caching strategies and method interception in spring
applications, I decided to insert a different topic that concerns me since I gave a presentation the other day.
The main goal of that event was to show the current implementation state to the upcoming users.
The initiator of that project defined the platform in a very broad manner and with a scope that overlapped
more than one company. In doing so an integrated management process could be achieved for handling user/object
associations which would unify existing concepts that are alike for all expected participators - that implicates
that all of them currently hold and maintain individual applications for handling their own isolated process.
It's needless to mention that the unification of theses processes would lead to an economization even for
future applications. This affects the support for such a process as well as the application administration and maintenance.
Up to here the idea sounds very promising and reasonable. That's maybe why we were commissioned to implement
that piece of software. Unfortunately the project was altered within the scope of the number of participants and
thus in its importance. By reducing the scope to currently one / two partners, the whole idea was definitely
crippled. Although it's crucial to mention that the implication of such a project is the requirement for an even
bigger project that has the goal of unifying the required meta data and management concepts. On the other hand
even that project would lead to a unified concept on a more abstract level.
The question I ask myself now, is how to convince the people in charge of broadening the scope to the one formerly
defined and turn the project into an overall success? I appreciate all comments on that issue.
