PROJECT PLANNING/MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW - SECTION SUMMARY

SECTION: Concurrency

Copyright (c) 2000 Jim Salmons and Frank Castellucci
All Rights Reserved

Associated project: "Specification Writing for Web-based
		    Project Planning Software" (sXc ID: 24)

Project URL: http://sohodojo.com/techsig/project-planning-project.html

sXc Project detail: http://sourcexchange.com/ProjectDetail?projectID=24

Project coordination: SourceXchange

Sponsors: Opendesk.com and Collab.Net

Core Team: Jim Salmons and Frank Castellucci


1 Introduction

	This document aggregates the feature and underlying model analyses of
comparable products and services in the domain of the project specification
requirements. During the comparables analysis phase, nine product and service
offerings were examined.

1.1 Format and Key to Abbreviations

	Each of fourteen sections of the Comparables Analysis Data Capture
Outline has a Section Summary file such as this one. Section 1 of each data
collection form is an Introduction statement explaining the project and the
assessment. Section 16 is a reviewer profile. Since all data was produced by the
core project team members, section 16 does not have a summary section.
	
	In a Section Summary file, we aggregate the analysis data within each
subsection of the raw data collection forms. Each data point from the raw
assessment outlines is presented in the following alphabetical order and
prefixed with the following identifying abbreviations:
	
	EN - Enact Enterprise System 4.2 by Netmosphere/CriticalPath
	EP - eProject Express by eProject.com, Inc.
	FT - FastTrack Schedule 6.04 by AEC Software Inc.
	MP - ManagePro 4.0 by Performance Solutions Technology LLC
	MS - MS Project 2000 by Microsoft Corporation
	OD - Opendesk.com by HBE Software
	SF - SourceForge by SourceForge (VA Linux)
	WP - WebProject by Novient
	XC - X-Community by X Collaboration Software Corp.

	The aggregated section data in each Section Summary file is the last
section of the file. In addition to the aggregated data, each summary file has
an optional section for the capture of summary insights or comments.

1.2 Section Summary Insights and/or Comments


====== SECTION SUMMARY DATA ======


6 Concurrency

Concurrency is defined by the implementations locking and transaction
model. As such, the granularity of the locking will determine the
liveliness of the system. The finer the granularity of locking, the
more lively the interactions may be. Another aspect of concurrency
is in regards to work-flow and the transaction model, does the system
support "conversational or long-term transactions" for example.

6.1 Single or multi-user

** EN **
	Web-based, multi-user. (There is a slick Palm device interface.)

** EP **
	Multi-user, real-time, server-based.

** FT **
	The design-point is ease-of-use for FTS. AEC has done an excellent job
of making its network versions 'transparent' upgrades to its basic single user
'local application' base product.
	
	A built-in license registry manages user licenses and log-ins, etc.
Password-based permission setting allow the project manager to set
'none/read/read-write' access levels for users.
	
	FTS supports TCP/IP-based file access which lets it be used in both
local intranets as well as on the Internet.

** MP **
	The Solo Edition is single-user. The Teamware Edition is multi-user.

** MS **
	Multiuser

** OD **
	OpenDesk supports multiple users in a company intranet. A user may
belong to multiple company intranets.

** SF **
	SourceForge support multiple users that can participate in zero or more
projects concurrently with other logged on users.

** WP **
	WebProject puts a tremendous emphasis on multi-user, highly
collaborative project management.

** XC **
	Multi-user


6.2 What is the implementation technology supporting concurrency?

** EN **
	Java-enabled client browser and/or optional Java-based desktop
application. A built-in or external LDAP server handles directory services.

** EP **
	Based on the URLs during interaction, '.ASP' filename extensions and
mile-long gobbledy-goop session management parameterizations, it appears that
the eProject.com servers are Microsoft IIS type. This is a crude guess.

** FT **
	FTS manages its own 'file/record'-locking. When used interactively, FTS
uses a 'pen' UI metaphor to pass 'change access' among a collaborating group of
project planners.

** MP **
	ManagePro's database engine is built-in and proprietary. This makes it
for relatively transparent and intuitive use by users to use and sysAdmin folks
to install and maintain.
	
	The lack of support for Internet communication protocols limits its
distributed applications in today's Web World, however the Multi-link features
allow highly distributed WAN-based network configurations.
	
	The 'extract/resynch' features for mobile computing were extremely
innovative at their introduction. They still remain relatively advanced for an
affordable project management offering.

** MS **
	Centralized database on networked servers. Thin client user interface
enabling server side logic modules.

** OD **
	Two tiered implementation, server side scripts commiting data to the
database.

** SF **
	World Wide Web provides the concurrent access to the system, MySQL
provides concurrency support on object tuples, CVS provides concurrency for
project files (source, web pages, etc.).

** WP **
	Web server, Java Server Pages, and two-phase commit.

** XC **
	Not sure, but suspect that X-Collaboration's tight partnership with
Microsoft would suggest that the server-side back end is MS-based.


6.3 Revision Management

** EN **
	The System Administrator has a global Backup service to capture the data
state of the Workspace of the Enact Collaboration Server.
	
	The Task Notes attribute supports a simple 'Insert link' function that
can be either a URL, a file attachment, or link to another Enact Project. These
links are not versioned.

** EP **
	Very limited. There are numerous change notification features, but these
are mostly 'after the event' notices. The Documents store feature does not do
versioning. eProject.com has recently offered a 'pay-per' and subscription-based
CD-ROM project back up service which give a level of 'version accumulation', but
it is not true version management.

** FT **
	None.

** MP **
	ManagePro has a configurable archive facility for its databases. These
archive features provide back-up and restore functionality at the overall
database level.
	
	In support of mobile computing and Multi-link distributed
configurations, there is a conflict identification and resolution subsystem to
help maintain integrity of ManagePro databases.
	
	While ManagePro provides a rich set of Document attachment features,
there is no built-in version control features within this attachment mechanism.
People/Users have two choices for Attachment version control; 'roll your own' by
adopting a 'file naming and multiple-attachment' procedure to maintain revision
history, or simply attach documents whose applications provide their own version
management features, such as is common among word processing applications today.

** MS **
	Functionality not defined.

** OD **
	Functionality not supported.

** SF **
	SourceForge uses CVS for project files as subjectively identified. The
system is backed up nightly, in addition to the projects CVS tree being tarred
for download on the same schedule.

** WP **
	This is a manual effort facilitated by project archiving and download.

** XC **
	X-Communities Notecards have a strong, unobtrusive version control
system that is server-based. A Notecard is an 'access wrapper' for just about
any 'separately storable work product' which can be anything from direct-entry
text, an uploaded binary file, a web URL, etc. Once wrapped by a Notecard, the
system maintains a version history of changes to the Notecard. Creator and
creation date are maintained as well as who and when the item was last modified.
	
	A History Panel provides an easy interface into the version history. A
Rollback feature makes changing the Active Version quick and easy.


6.4 Reviewer Comments

** EN **
	None

** EP **
	None

** FT **
	None

** MP **
	None

** MS **
	As expected for a multiuser system.

** OD **
	None

** SF **
	Given the implementation, the concurrency and liveliness of the project
activity is mainly focused on the CVS "check-in" model for development objects.

** WP **
	None

** XC **
	The version control features are very nice... not as mega-powerful as,
say, CVS but WAY easier and more intuitive to use.



DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version 0.9 - Draft
Version 1.0 - Final
 
### end of sxc24-02sect-comparables.txt (Version 1.0) ###