Deprecation of the FTP and Shared repository types in Docman in 24R1 - a heads-up

  • 5 October 2023
  • 58 replies
  • 2116 views
Show first post

58 replies

DeanBurell
Rank
Userlevel 3
Badge +5

No what I want is the solution to support multiple repositories and external non-cloud repositories as the current functionality in IFS 10 supports and every previous version since IFS 98. Just having multiple shares in the cloud is not enough.

Astra Canyon Group is a Channel Sales and Services Partner that helps customers maximize the value of their IFS Solutions since 1999 * We are growing! We are looking for experienced consultants to join our team *
Mathias Dahl
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +30

No what I want is the solution to support multiple repositories and external non-cloud repositories as the current functionality in IFS 10 supports and every previous version since IFS 98. Just having multiple shares in the cloud is not enough.

Firstly, I want to ask you to try to be more explicit with your terminology. It's hard to make out what you mean and it then becomes hard for me to comment. 

For example, the use of the word "cloud" in your comment above. Do you refer to the product IFS Cloud or Cloud deployment or cloud computing in general? And please be specific, on every point you make, if you mean Remote or Cloud deployment, otherwise we cannot communicate clearly.

I also think you don't understand my proposal for an idea here on IFS Community, because I think it will solve the problems you describe and its very similar to what are describing that we have had for many years. I will try to explain the idea again:

The idea is for Remote Deployment only, which is IFS term for on-premise, which is about using your own hardware or someone else's cloud.

I argue that, on a high level, it's exactly the same thing to have IFS Cloud File Storage support multiple shares, as having Docman support different shares or FTP servers/folders today. If IFS Cloud File Storage supported multiple shares we could point out different shares to be used for different classes. I didn't describe the idea in this level of detail earlier since it was obvious to me, so apologize for that.

Is it clearer? If not, I can try to explain the idea with some images/diagrams or even fake screenshots.

If we had the feature I'm thinking about we would essentially replace Docman's own support for multiple shares or FTP folders with IFS Cloud File Storage and multiple shares pointed to from Docman.

I have some comments too, especially regarding the performance argument, which is simply not true, not even in Apps 7.5 to Apps 10, since all file transfers go via the application server which will be the bottleneck. So, an end use would not benefit from downloading a document from a local file share if the application server is far away.

Your other arguments, which are mostly centered around physically separating groups of files (for different reasons), have some merits but the devil is in the detail. We need to remember that, even if documents are separated on different shares, all network traffic anyway goes through a single point. This is why our customer SAAB, which need to follow export control regulations, cannot fully use Docman for all their document management. At any rate, my proposed idea is equally good, or bad, depending on how you see things. Again, on a high level, because there is of course a technical difference between using an FTP server and Windows file share.

All of the above applies to Remote Deployment only. As you know, IFS Cloud in Cloud Deployment does not support storing documents on hardware owned by the customer. There we only support database or IFS Cloud File Storage with Azure Storage as the backend. That's a business decision made by IFS (not "R&D") when IFS Cloud was first released. I urge you to file a separate idea about that if you want that to be taken into consideration, but I suspect this has been asked for and dismissed several times already. I haven't been part of such discussions but. I have heard about some of the reasons for not supporting it and if you want to challenge that, it's better done using a separate idea or discussion. If you want I can make the right people join in and comment on that topic.

Thanks for the feedback on comments on our original post, getting comments like these was partly why we shared it here on IFS Community.

/Mathias
DeanBurell
Rank
Userlevel 3
Badge +5

 

 

@Mathias Dahl  “As you know, IFS Cloud in Cloud Deployment does not support storing documents on hardware owned by the customer. There we only support database or IFS Cloud File Storage with Azure Storage as the backend. That's a business decision made by IFS (not "R&D") when IFS Cloud was first released.”

This is the problem.  IFS wants all customers to move to the hosted cloud, but is removing functionality that would enable them to do so.  IFS wants to promote that the IFS applications is one product and is the same whether implemented in the IFS Cloud or Remote,  a key selling point that differentiates us from our competition.  and what you are saying here is that it is different and functions different.

Multiple shares/repositories in the cloud does address the issue of segregation of files, and that is a good thing and will address one of the use cases of multi company and multi country.

Based on your comment regarding performance,  I could be wrong but in earlier versions of IFS the ftp was implemented in the thick client, not the application server.  in either case if find it interesting that you would not implement across multiple regions for performance, especially with global companies.

Regarding “all network traffic anyway goes through a single point. This is why our customer SAAB, which need to follow export control regulations, cannot fully use Docman for all their document management.”    Explain your reasoning behind this,   

We have print servers and other services that connect IFS to on-prem solutions, seems like it would be better to resolve the issue so our customers can get the full value of IFS Docman rather than forcing them to either not use the solution or be limited.

Astra Canyon Group is a Channel Sales and Services Partner that helps customers maximize the value of their IFS Solutions since 1999 * We are growing! We are looking for experienced consultants to join our team *
Mathias Dahl
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +30

@Mathias Dahl Seems ridiculous to have to create an idea for this as if it were new functionality rather than functionality that already exists that you are taking away.

It's new functionality to add support for multiple storage locations in IFS Cloud File Storage. IFS Cloud File Storage is and will be our main way/service to store files, like the name suggests.

Also, Docman and IFS Cloud File Storage are being developed and maintained by two different teams, with different priorities. It might not be optimal, but it is how it is.

/Mathias
Mathias Dahl
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +30

@dean

This is the problem.  IFS wants all customers to move to the hosted cloud, but is removing functionality that would enable them to do so.  

IFS probably want that, yes, but still see that there is a need for “on premise” in some cases. Here, the needs of cloud operations, and the certifications they work hard to adhere to, conflicts with the need of some customers, and then another option is needed (“Remote”). It makes sense to me.

IFS wants to promote that the IFS applications is one product and is the same whether implemented in the IFS Cloud or Remote,  a key selling point that differentiates us from our competition.  and what you are saying here is that it is different and functions different.

Let’s sat that IFS Cloud consists of, say, one million “features” (~8000 different object types, where each object type surely have hundreds of behaviors or features, on average).

I don't think it's unreasonable that, due to the very different "execution context" (public cloud, with all that entails when it comes to security, for example vs on premise hardware controlled by customer), a few of those features will not work the same, or cannot be implemented in either of the deployment options.

Based on your comment regarding performance,  I could be wrong but in earlier versions of IFS the ftp was implemented in the thick client, not the application server.

We left the thick client when we released Apps 7.5, over 10 years ago. Since then, all file transfers have been going via the application server.

...in either case if find it interesting that you would not implement across multiple regions for performance, especially with global companies.

I think it's not impossible to get there, but we need more features to get there, each one needs to be prioritized and investigated and I think our cloud operations would also need to evolve to support that.

We have print servers and other services that connect IFS to on-prem solutions

I didn't know that and since that's news to me I cannot comment on if it's relevant or not to the discussion.

Regardless, was I able to explain to you clearly what the idea is that you need to register, about IFS Cloud File Storage supporting multiple shares (and Docman needs to be adjusted to use that feature)?

 

/Mathias
K
Rank
Userlevel 2
Badge +6

Hi @Mathias Dahl , will you by this also extend the possibility to use Azure blob storage on the Remote solution to. Many customers is using Azure as the hosting platform for IFS cloud already and supporting blob storage from azure in the remote solution instead of starting with smb file share ++ in azure

Mathias Dahl
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +30

@kjro That’s not in the plans as I understand things, no.

@chanaka-shanil - FYI

 

/Mathias
F
Rank
Badge +1

Hi @Mathias Dahl ,

 

I must have read your initial email 4 or 5 times and I didn’t get it until your last response where I decided to reference the online documentation and go through the IFS Cloud File Storage information.  Then I read your initial email again and I understood what the second paragraph under TODAY was saying.  

I would recommend you include this reference to the documentation will visually really shows what you are explaining.  For me it really did the trick.

 

https://docs.ifs.com/techdocs/23r1/020_lifecycle/100_file_storage_service/#introduction

 

Regards,

William Klotz

Unfortunetaly the link does not seem to be available any more … 

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings