It's all about the answers!

Ask a question
QuestionsTagsUsersBadges
Guidelines | FAQ
Follow this question
Question details

×42,850

question asked: Aug 24 '08, 10:38 a.m.
question was seen: 4,797 times
last updated: Aug 24 '08, 10:38 a.m.

Related questions

CC / QC to Team Concert - migrate or interoperation?

0
Bruno Braga (480●1●36●21) | asked Aug 24 '08, 10:38 a.m.
Today we use ClearCase UCM + ClearQuest.
I liked the Team Concert.

To use the Team Concert, what is the best strategy for new projects?
It is better to "migrate" new projects to the Team Concert (only) or use the Team Concert + Connectors + CC + CQ?

1) Migrate: the SCM of Team Concert is more limited than the ClearCase?
2) Interoperation: based on a quick reading, it seems that the Team Concert not delegate the responsibility of SCM to CC. Interoperation is duplication of CC files / CQ records? If I create 4 GB of files in CC, the connector will copy the 4 GB to the Team Concert SCM?
3) What is the benefit to continue using CC + CQ? (features)

thanks

9 answers

Most liked answers ↑|Newest answers|Oldest answers

0
permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35) | answered Aug 24 '08, 12:58 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
First, you'll want to make sure to read the CC/CQ Connector deployment
guide:
https://jazz.net/learn/LearnItem.jsp?href=content/tech-notes/rational-team-concert-1_0-cc-and-cq-connectors-deployment-guide/index.html

WRT the specific questions:
1) Jazz/SCM and ClearCase have different capabilities. For example,
Jazz/SCM is very fast and provides flexible change-set management, while
ClearCase provides dynamic views, build auditing, and multi-site
capabilities.
2) Yes, Jazz/SCM and ClearCase are different SCM systems. The CC
Connector will only transfer the versions that you explicitly select, so
usually only a small subset of the information is transferred between
Jazz/SCM and ClearCase by a synchronize operation.
3) You would continue to use CC/CQ with Team Concert if some of your
teams require CC/CQ capabilities, such as dynamic views, multi-site,
etc. In addition, there are limitations in Team Concert 1.0 (no more
than 250 users of a single repository, no visual studio client
integration, limited command line functionality) that would result in
some teams preferring/needing to use CC/CQ until those limitations are
removed in a post-1.0 release of Team Concert.

Cheers,
Geoff


bruno.braga wrote:
Today we use ClearCase UCM + ClearQuest.
I liked the Team Concert.

To use the Team Concert, what is the best strategy for new projects?
It is better to "migrate" new projects to the Team Concert
(only) or use the Team Concert + Connectors + CC + CQ?

1) Migrate: the SCM of Team Concert is more limited than the
ClearCase?
2) Interoperation: based on a quick reading, it seems that the Team
Concert not delegate the responsibility of SCM to CC. Interoperation
is duplication of CC files / CQ records? If I create 4 GB of files in
CC, the connector will copy the 4 GB to the Team Concert SCM?
3) What is the benefit to continue using CC + CQ? (features)

thanks
0
permanent link
Bruno Braga (480●1●36●21) | answered Aug 24 '08, 6:23 p.m.
hmmm... thanks,

We have a team of 100 people. We didn't use the multi-site and dynamic views. The hosts (clients) use only the CCRC + ClearQuest.

We need some things that are limited in ClearCase 7.0.1.1, because it is a very old software. Ex: ACL, reports.

So I have this doubt if we will need the ClearCase, but the ClearQuest was one of the best software from IBM before the Jazz. The flexibility of ClearQuest (schemas) is perfect.

I read the tech note, but I'm not sure which is the best strategy. This decision depends on IBM's plans for each software in the future.

The CC will have some improvements in version 8 (ACL / ClearCase Explorer using Eclipse). So may be precipitated remove the CC now.

There is the intention of Team Concert delegate the responsibility of SCM to CC instead of replication? There are technical impediments or it could be an improvement for Team Concert 1.5 or 2.0?
This also would be a good reason to keep the CC.
0
permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35) | answered Aug 25 '08, 1:05 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Yes, for Team Concert 2.0, it is our plan to introduce a "bridge" to
ClearCase (so ClearCase would provide the SCM functionality directly for
an RTC user), in addition to the current "synchronization" with Jazz-SCM
system that is provided by the RTC 1.0 ClearCase Connector.

What I would suggest is for you to run a small trial project using RTC,
to see how well it addresses your use cases. If it doesn't cover your
use cases, we would appreciate the feedback, to give us guidance on what
Jazz-SCM features are highest priority for RTC 1.5 and 2.0.

Cheers,
Geoff


bruno.braga wrote:
hmmm... thanks,

We have a team of 100 people. We didn't use the multi-site and dynamic
views. The hosts (clients) use only the CCRC + ClearQuest.

We need some things that are limited in ClearCase 7.0.1.1, because it
is a very old software. Ex: ACL, reports.

So I have this doubt if we will need the ClearCase, but the ClearQuest
was one of the best software from IBM before the Jazz. The flexibility
of ClearQuest (schemas) is perfect.

I read the tech note, but I'm not sure which is the best strategy.
This decision depends on IBM's plans for each software in the
future.

The CC will have some improvements in version 8 (ACL / Project
Explorer using Eclipse). So may be precipitated remove the CC now.

There is the intention of Team Concert delegate the responsibility of
SCM to CC instead of replication? There are technical impediments or
it could be an improvement for Team Concert 1.5 or 2.0?
This also would be a good reason to keep the CC.
0
permanent link
Bruno Braga (480●1●36●21) | answered Aug 25 '08, 8:16 a.m.
Ok.

Thanks Geoff.
I'm preparing this trial project.

My first suggestion to version 2.0 is exploring the concept of "plug-in" of eclipse project.

Using the same concept could be:
- "un-plug" Jazz SCM and "plug" ClearCase SCM.
- "un-plug" basic container autentication and "plug" my custom autentication. Ex: autentication using SSO NTLM
- "un-plug" a feature X and "plug" my custom feature X

Understand?

Thanks!
0
permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35) | answered Aug 25 '08, 11:09 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
If it is an Eclipse project, then you get "plug/unplug" today via
Eclipse (an Eclipse project knows which SCM provider it is associated
with). If you mean something more than that, please elaborate.

Please file a workitem on the authentication enhancement.

For the last request, "unplug feature X and replace with my custom
feature X", that request is a bit too generic ... we'd need something
more specific, like the authentication enhancement you described.

Cheers,
Geoff

bruno.braga wrote:
My first suggestion to version 2.0 is exploring the concept of
"plug-in" of eclipse project.

Using the same concept could be:
- "un-plug" Jazz SCM and "plug" ClearCase SCM.
- "un-plug" basic container autentication and
"plug" my custom autentication. Ex: autentication using SSO
NTLM
- "un-plug" a feature X and "plug" my custom
feature X

Understand?

Thanks!
0
permanent link
Bruno Braga (480●1●36●21) | answered Aug 25 '08, 4:55 p.m.
Hi Geoff,

I mentioned a few examples, but I was commenting about RTC architecture. An architecture that supports "unplug / plug" for features (like eclipse). This could be used to create several extensions (web extension too). But this is only a suggestion to customize the RTC and improve the community.

I'll create the work item for authentication enhancement.
0
permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35) | answered Aug 26 '08, 9:10 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Yes, I agree with the value of being able to plug/unplug a feature, but
for this to work in an integrated environment like Team Concert, the API
for that feature must be frozen, which can constrain subsequent
development of that feature. So for each feature, the benefits of
exposing it as a plugin must be balanced against the cost associated
with freezing the API that accesses that feature. So we would need a
separate discussion on each feature that is proposed to be exposed as a
plugin.

Cheers,
Geoff

bruno.braga wrote:
Hi Geoff,

I mentioned a few examples, but I was commenting about RTC
architecture. An architecture that supports "unplug / plug"
for features (like eclipse). This could be used to create several
extensions (web extension too). But this is only a suggestion.

I'll create the work item for authentication enhancement.
0
permanent link
Bruno Braga (480●1●36●21) | answered Aug 26 '08, 10:51 a.m.
Yes, I agree =)

This is a feature to be considered carefully and explore the experience of the eclipse project.

I've opened an enhancement for document and mature this idea.

Today there are some good web projects that use plug-in feature, such as:
- Atlassian JIRA
- Atlassian Confluence

thanks Geoff
0
permanent link
Bruno Braga (480●1●36●21) | answered Aug 27 '08, 10:56 a.m.
plug-in extension already exists:

https://jazz.net/jazz/web/projects/Jazz%20Project#action=com.ibm.team.workitem.viewWorkItem&id=60211

https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/Main/RtcSdk

=)

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.