On a Tridion 2011 SP1 system, you have a choice between implementing SiteEdit 2009 SP3 and the more recent "User Interface update for SDL Tridion 2011 SP1" (also known as Experience Manager). What criteria are important in making this choice, and why?
For example:
Ease/cost of implementation
Infrastructure
License costs
Future support
Improved functionality
Both SiteEdit 2009 SP3 and Experience Manager are currently supported products. But it's clear that SDL's focus going forward is to further extend Experience Manager and not SiteEdit 2009 anymore.
In simple scenarios SiteEdit 2009 may be a bit easier to implement, due to the fact that Experience Manager has a bigger impact on the Content Delivery system due to the prerequisites for its Session Preview mechanism. When I install Experience Manager without Session Preview however, I find that it takes me no more time than setting up SiteEdit 2009 - a product that I've installed considerably more often.
But Experience Manager should typically cause fewer integration problems, due to the fact that it doesn't use a server-side proxy. A lot of more advanced authentication scenarios should simply work with Experience Manager, where they've proven challenging with SiteEdit 2009.
I think the above covers points 1 through 4 of your question. I'll leave number 5 to others, although I already mentioned "Session Preview" as one of the big new features in Experience Manager.
My thoughts (I'm still calling the new product UI btw):
UI will only work on 2011 Sp1 Hr1
SiteEdit is quite old now, UI is the later product... why would you choose to install something that isn't the latest software?
To your points:
the cost of installation of 2009 will be a waste when you have to installed UI shortly after :)
UI doesn't have the proxy anymore, it's part of the CM machine. setting up sites is much much easier
3/4. No idea on license cost, I'd imagine SE2009 isn't supported by SDL though, so I'd ask SDL.
UI is really great, I'm not going to write an essay on the new stuff, but I think the point on your list, that isn't there, should be:
'What do the end users think of both systems?'
This is a user editing tool, infrastructure, implementation of technical details, which I'm sure you can work around for either (should you have to), if you're putting in a tool that will be used by users and you have a choice to make, shouldn't it be the one that they agree works best?
I will add my 2 cents on costs - In a most of my implementations, getting SiteEdit 2009 installed and tested typically has taken less than half a day per environment. Make sure you apply all the hot fixes from SDL Tridion World to get it to work with the latest browsers.
The new UI can optionally use something called 'Session Preview' (to enable fast publishing) which makes use of several Content Delivery technologies such as OData. If you are not already using these in your implementation, then their is likely to be a considerable investment into infrastructure/application design to get it designed/installed/working/tested (I have heard cases where this has taken over a month), which will make the Experience Manager considerably more expensive to implement in the short term. If you don't use the 'Session Preview' feature, (as Frank has already said) the implementation time/cost is similar, but you will not benefit from the new fast publishing features of the newer product.
As for functionality - the two environments look and feel very different. Experience Manager is clearly the direction the products are moving towards and provides a much slicker interface. So if your client is new to SDL Tridion, I would suggest using it, however if they are a long time SDL Tridion customer who has experience with SiteEdit 1.3 or 2009, and you don't plan to take advantage of some of the newer features in the short term, I would be tempted to stay with SE 2009, and make the shift to Experience Manager when they upgrade to SDL Tridion 2013.
Related
Currently i am working on developing one Warehouse solution from scratch, i am planning to build it in silverlight (as this solution will take around 8-10 months) and the programming will start from Feb 2010.
I need to develop this application for one organization. Certain parts needs to be accessed by public which we are planning to build in ASP .Net 3.5
Now i just wanted to start a thread here for pros and cons of using silverlight, some of them i have already analyzed
Pros :
Rich UI
Excellent user experience
Reduction of scalability concerns
New set of features like data binding, control template etc..
Speed of development (After initial learning curve..my experience says it is faster to develop it in silverlight)
Other rich set of features coming up with SL 4.0 (SL 4.0)
Cons :
Cross platform issues (moonlight is there but it may take some time)
Cross browser issues (Chrome or other browsers)
Learning curve
Any other unknown risk (As there are not many enterprise level application developed in silverlight...or may be i am not aware)
I have also got one link for Pros and cons of silverlight(here) some of the cons might not be relevant with SL 4.0
Also i am having one good link for comparison between ASP .Net Ajax with Silverlight (here)
EDIT :
I have also found Technical Article series in code project (Just Type # google "Adventures while building a Silverlight Enterprise application" and you will get it, i am trying to analyze this series as well)
Please add some pros and cons if you find as i am trying to analyze it from all the angles. It will be of great help if you find any whitepaper on it.
The Pros and Cons have to be weighed against your own requirements.
Rich UI
Compared to what? Its not really a Pro, other tools can deliver Rich UI, where does one draw the line that allows a UI to call itself Rich? A Pro can't be a Pro if can't be measured.
Excellent User Experience
That isn't a Pro either. I wish I could buy product that delvers such a thing out of the box. The reality is it's up to you to deliver the UX. E.g. Stackoverflow delivers an excellent user experience, it doesn't use a tool like SL and it's entirely down to good design not the tool (ASP.NET-MVC+various other tools).
Reduction of Scalability Concerns
Compared to what? Early ASP.NET Forms with extensive use of callbacks then yes. However plain old HTML with Javascript frameworks can deliver this same "Pro".
Speed of Development
Well that depends on how you measure speed and how you weigh the importance of the UX. Currently SL developement isn't any better at ticking off business function points than other tech like poor old ASP.NET Forms and is probably worse. However delivering those same function points with a slick, imaginative UI may tip the balance more in WPF/SL's way. In reality SL allows you deliver more UX with some (but importantly not prohibative) extra effort.
Other Rich Features in SL4
Only a Pro if they would actually add value to your requirement.
Cross Platform
Do you really have a Cross Platform requirement? Within a warehouse business how many Linux and Mac desktops are there? That should answer your cross platform question.
Cross Browser
Is this a Con? Does the company in question allow the use of a variety of browsers? If so which? You can compare that to the browsers SL4 supports and out pops your answer but its your answer not everyones answer. Isn't cross-browser a bigger concern for the Extranet-esq part of the app?
Learning Curve
In all of these factors what are you already versed in is by far and away the most important. I'm guessing its MS tools and in particular .NET, right?
If you're not familiar with WPF already there is some learning curve but its not very steep. However you should definitely make sure you take the time to perform some training projects before you even start designing your real product. That process should help you measure how long it will really take and whether it is really feasable.
Other Known Risks
SL is still very young and it won't sit still. Frustrating "issues" will eat time.
Other questions to ponder
What UX ideas do you have that can't be delivered by a browser?
Why deliver the app via a browser hosted app at all? A WPF application not an option?
Silverlight 4
Considering your timescales if you do choose Silverlight you should target SL4.
Since you are developing solution for the warehouse, you may need consider building a web service with wcf pollDuplex (basically push data from server to the client periodically), just a note on it: it is not (yet) a very scalable and reliable (prior to SL4). Default concurrent connection is 10 (if I remember well), and you have the option to overwrite this default number, however, I haven't find a way to dynamically change this number which turns out to be a scalability issue.
One cool feature I like about SL 4 is the added support of printing, now you have the built-in ability to print the content.
Anyone bulding an Enterprise LOB with a Silverlight client should take a look at John Papa's PDC video.
However, IMHO the initial release of RIA Services was too limited. Now that the next version is buit on top of WCF Services, and the endpoints can be switched out to make them more accessible by more UI clients RIA Service is probably a very sensible investment too.
I work in a shop that is mostly .NET based, and we're trying to pick out a content management system to use. This means we mostly likely won't be able to use any of the common open source CMS projects (Plone, phpNuke, anthing not based on .NET, etc.).
Since I'm a huge usability nerd (just finished reading The Design of Everyday Things by Norman), I've been looking at them from that point of view. Frankly, I haven't been too impressed. This quote sums it up:
Most open source content management software is useless. The only thing worse is every commercial CMS I’ve used. - Jeffrey Veen
Here's a short list of our requirements:
Has to be .NET based
Prefer open source or on the inexpensive side
Limited feature set (we don't need too many features and they make things harder to use)
Does need Active Directory integration and robust permissions
Should be focused on web standards and usability
I know it's probably an impossible feature list, but are there any content management systems that kinda sorta look like they might not suck more than a Dyson?
Edit:
Here's the current situation:
I'm going to push for N2. I've got Active Directory integration working well (I even wrote a custom role provider). The only thing missing is workflow functionality. Hopefully I can get something going with that since it's the last sticking point. The N2Contrib project might provide a starting point if I can figure it out.
I would still love to check out Stencil CMS if/when it gets off the ground.
One of my co-workers was trying to get Umbraco going but wasn't having much luck.
Thanks for the help!
Self-plug is lame, but what you're describing is pretty much exactly what I am getting ready to release for $79 a pop. If you're still looking in a few weeks, take a peek. If you'd like, shoot me an email (rex#stencilcms.com).
I've heard both positive and negative feedback about Umbraco. A lot of people like Graffiti, but it's more blog-oriented than a full-blown CMS.
Check out N2 (http://n2cms.com/). I think that it covers most, if not all, of your requirements (I don't think it has Active Directory capability at this time). We are using N2 and I have really enjoyed how flexible it has been.
My company just completed a review of several commercial .NET-based CMS/portal platforms and, while I can't reveal who was in them (thanks, NDAs!), I can tell you that IMO they all sucked very, very badly.
Good luck on your search. I'll keep an eye on this thread in the hopes that there's something we missed.
We had a similar set of requirements and chose Telerik Sitefinity. It's got it's faults but overall I've been happy with it so far.
Unfortunately Jeffery speaks the truth. Which is probably why I build a new custom cms from the ground up every few years. Basically, the motivation for "boxed" CMS packages is to have every feature on earth and be everything to everyone and therefore do nothing particularly well for anyone. With the feature bloat comes the usability nightmares. Unless you start customizing and then you usually end up forking the project and losing the advantage of community updates.
Kentico CMS according your list:
Has to be .NET based
It's .net based, .NET Framework 2.0 or later
Prefer open source or on the inexpensive side
Free edition which can be used for commercial purposes is available, paid license starts at $750, source code is an option
Limited feature set (we don't need too many features and they make things harder to use)
Many built-in modules/features, anyway they can be easily disabled to keep the UI simple to use
Does need Active Directory integration and robust permissions
AD, Forms and Live Id! Integration
Should be focused on web standards and usability
UTF-8 Support including RTL languages, WAI Compliant, XHTML Compliant, XML, XHTML, HTML, XSLT, CSS.
Instant on-line demo or download available at:
http://www.kentico.com/Download.aspx
I am preparing to start on a new short-term contract (1-2 months) that involves replacing an Access application by moving it to ASP.NET and SQL Server.
I am only responsible for the ASP part and connecting it to the database.
The only requirement is that whatever technologies I use be relatively well-known in the area, so that if they need to have someone else work on it, it isn't specialized knowledge.
So, I could do this in Rails or ASP.NET, but, when should the development be aiming for .NET 4 Framework, as there are many changes coming out that may be advantageous to use.
Or, even though it may be useful, when is it better to just ignore new features and stay on an older version of .NET?
I am assuming that hardware isn't the limitation, as many computers won't be able to run .NET 4 Framework, but that would be an issue for a hosting company, as they can find a hosting company to support whichever framework the application is designed for. If Rails makes the most sense, as their hope is to have the application written quickly, but have it reliable, then again, the hosting company would need to support it, or they use a different one.
This company hasn't used a hosting company, they need to find one, so there isn't a relationship that could be an issue.
UPDATE: Part of my concern is that initially the application will not require javascript, but phase 2 will be to make it more interactive, as some clients won't be allowed to have javascript on their computers. In order to limit how much javascript must be known by a developer there are frameworks that will adapt to browsers and situations fairly well, which is why I am also thinking about RoR and the fact that there appears to be changes coming out in .NET 4 that may help with this.
As a general rule of thumb, I wait one year before building sites in a new framework unless the client specifically asks for the newest technology. This has worked out very well for me. The advantages are:
The technology is much more stable (hotfixes, service packs, etc.)
Common complaints about missing functionality are usually resolved
Hosting companies, support communities and corporate IT departments have had time to get used to the technology, find out more about it, play around with it and have it mature within their organization
Unless there is specific need for new functionality introduced by .Net 4, there is no point in subjecting your clients to the immediate problems with an initial release, or making it more difficult for them to find hosting. You should either investigate all of this up-front, or use .Net 3.5 in the meantime.
The only requirement is that whatever
technologies I use that it be
relatively well-known in the area, so
that if they need to have someone else
work on it, it isn't specialized
knowledge.
I would have thought that requirement was enough not to develop this project on .NET 4.0 - it takes time for a new framework version to filter down into the market, and it will be a while yet before there are a lot of developers around with .NET 4.0 experience.
Also, you would be essentially developing on top of a BETA product - while I'm sure most of the features will remain unbroken from BETA -> RTM, there is always a risk that something will break or not work like it did in BETA, so why risk this on a commercial project?
I wouldn't target .NET 4.0 yet on a commercial project unless there was a specific reason for doing so, and even then you would have to have buy-in from the client, ie "I can do this much more quickly and with less effort if we use the current beta version X rather than established, stable version Y" - good luck with that.
I worked on a commercial project that used the CTP version of LINQ to SQL - then when we went to VS2008 / 3.5, suddenly everything changed and we had to make a lot of changes just to get LINQ to SQL working again.
Stick with 3.5 - it's easier for hosting and getting developers.
Just a couple of thoughts, I wouldn't even think about creating an application for production use in .NET 4/ASP.NET 4 until:
There is a release candidate. It's
not the first time I've seen
features in beta's not make it to
RC/RTM.
Microsoft have permitted development and deployment
of production applications by way of a 'Go
Live' license.
There are some hosters out in the market such as OrcsWeb who are participating in public beta testing, but they aren't intended for production use.
I'd run with the .NET 3.5/ASP.NET 2.0 or MVC bits for now. Better safe than sorry.
Generally speaking it's going to be easier finding hosting for a Rails app. If you want to run .net 4.0 you're probably going to have to run a VPS or dedicated machine. However if you're bailing after the application is finished and assuming your client is in Knoxville, they're going to have a tougher time finding a Rails developer to maintain the application.
I think the bigger question is your role. They're looking to you to solve this problem for them. Are you productive in both technologies? How about getting a Windows server up and running? A Linux server? How's your SQL Server vs MySql? I'd guess that you're probably stronger on one stack vs the other - for a contract that short I wouldn't want to be doing a lot of experimental development.
i wait until the OS that everyone will be using has it.
Just last month i took a dependancy on GDI+, which first shipped with Windows XP.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
One thing that I keep hearing in reference to ASP.NET and MSFT technologies is that they cost money to use. Often when they are being compared to open source languages someone will mention that one factor in favor of open source is that it's free (to an extent). My question is, when does ASP.NET actually cost money to use in terms of using the proprietary technology?
Understandably there are the hosting fees, but I'm curious about the fees outside of these hosting fees. I'm especially curious about this as it relates one-person smaller-site development (non-team/large enterprise). Any help is appreciated.
(edits)
Some excellent answers. Much appreciated
The projects that I'm looking to use the technologies for would be personal sites and very small business sites (1 or 2). The intent would of course be that these projects get much bigger. It seems that for commercial production, fees will apply. What about just basic dynamic "shared hosting" sites that provide information?
You have to measure many things when you determine cost. We recently went through an evaluation of platform choice by an outside vendor, and the recommendation is that we stay with a Microsoft.NET platform. Why? For us, the reason is that once you get to an enterprise-level product suite, the difference is not as big as people would like you to believe.
Purchasing Microsoft products is a sound choice. The initial cost might seem high, but keep in mind if you get Software Assurance on your purchase (Visual Studio, for example) you are entitled to free upgrades as long as you keep you SA current - and it is at a fraction of the cost of a repurchase. Many people think you need to buy the full retail version every time, and that is just not true. Work with a larger vendor, like CDW, to help with licensing questions. They got someone from Microsoft's Licensing Division on the phone with us and helped us choose what was right. Not high-pressured at all. They actually talked us down on some of the things we thought we needed.
MSDN subscriptions are great. I have one through my employer, but also used to maintain one personally. If you are a contractor/self-employed, it is an operational expense. Like buying full products, renewing a MSDN subscription is very inexpensive compared to a purchase, and especially considering what you get. The licensing within MSDN is rather generous, and since you are a one-person shop, if I read that correctly, one MSDN is more than enough for your non-production needs. Plus, the bundled Support Incidents are a nice plus, as well.
There are many versions of Visual Studio, from the Express Editions all the way up to the Team Editions. For example, we are rolling out Team Foundation Server right now, so our costs are obviously higher. For a startup or small shop, there are TFS hosting partners and you can get Team Explorer for free. Or you can mix and match, using Visual Studio for development and something like VSS, SVN, or countless other version control products out there.
Just because someone "goes open source", that does not mean that it is free. Yes, the platform choice might be free, and the tools might be free, but there is a definite chance that you will need a commercial library or component some day. Plus, nothing prevents you from going with Open Source products with Microsoft, either. There are many open source projects written in .NET that can be leveraged with your solutions, and Microsoft is becoming a lot more transparent. We are working on a very large, enterprise solution right now and we are using only one "commercial" product, outside of our development tooling. There is a lot of Open Source usage, and a lot of implementations cobbled from community musings and examples.
The one thing that often goes unmentioned is the human cost that goes into these decisions. Microsoft is hated by many and their solutions might not be the fastest or most robust (although I will take IIS7 on W2K8 over any other web server configuration any day) they are focusing on making people more productive at what they can do. You aren't just buying products with them, you are actually buying productivity. As someone who has worked in a few Open Source shops, I am very appreciative of all the things that they have gotten right and understand that free does not always mean better.
I have a "one-person" side business and I really recommend looking into an MSDN subscription. It will give you access to tools and technologies that you would not otherwise be able to get your hands on without going a la carte in a retail route. Talk with someone, like a CDW, to help you figure out your licensing needs. If it works out, definitely try that route. You can cover all your in-house needs in a one person shop with an MSDN subscription, most likely (for example, a lot of the products are available to install to you (as a user) up to ten times as long as the machines that they are installed on are "yours" and non-production. There are exceptions to that, but not many.)
If that does not work, try the free route. You can definitely use Mono for .NET Development, as well as the Express Editions. I know a few C# developers who swear by Mono and could not be happier.
Best of luck to you!
Often when they are being compared to open source languages someone will mention that one factor in favor of open source is that it's free (to an extent). My question is, when does ASP.NET actually cost money to use in terms of using the proprietary technology?
Usually when people refer to "cost" in the way you described, they're implicitly referring to TCO, or total cost of ownership. The cost is not an explicit cost in that you've paid for something directly, but rather the long-term price of using something over its lifetime.
For example, even if a particular proprietary technology is free, it may be more difficult to hire and find people who know about it to work on your project. Consequently, if it is less popular than some open-source equivalent, you may wind up paying more for the same amount of labor because appropriately talented staff will be harder to find and in higher demand.
Conversely, if an open-source product is free but has low mindshare or performs poorly, it may well be worth it to pay for an expensive, closed-source proprietary solution rather than having to learn the idiosyncracies of the open-source version.
Naturally, there is some controversy surrounding just how to measure TCO, with both camps having some valid points.
.NET is free
C# compilers are free
Certain versions of Visual Studio are free, and you don't actually need it to write for .NET anyway (though it really, really helps!)
There are many free online resources for learning .NET, such as http://asp.net
In short, there's no real cost to using ASP.NET other than the hosting fee of the website or options you might buy to make things easier (better versions of Visual Studio.)
There's more of an ideological divide, with open source guys on one side being pretty anti-microsoft and so claiming it's high cost to use. I wouldn't worry about them. ;)
There are a couple of good answers already, but I'd like to add "it depends".
joseph.ferris obviously works in a large organization, where the cost of switching platforms is going to be very, very expensive, so the cost of paying the licensing costs is much less that the cost of switching. Take a look at Jonathan Schwartz's blog entry for Mar. 11, especially the section titled "When Free is too Expensive" for another reason to go with fully-supported infrastructure.
But consider a couple of other scenarios.
First, there's the hobbyist, which is what you seem to be addressing - you want to play around with the technology, and maybe put up a website or three. There aren't any issues with privacy or scalability, so you can deploy your application on an inexpensive shared hosting solution. In this case, costs are pretty much irrelevant - whatever platform you pick, you can get free tools to get you started. Remember kids, the first hit is always free.
For a startup, things are a bit different. If the goal is to build a large website, the potential licensing costs can be daunting - it's probably going to a lot cheaper to go with open source. In addition to the production environment, you need to pay for development environments, testing, etc. Even for a small company, licenses may be more than they have in the budget - a single Windows 2003 server Enterprise license lists for $4k. If you're trying to break into a competitive environment and compete on price, this alone may make you uncompetitive. I have seen situations where a Windows-based solution (server, database, and custom development coupled with a content management system) is two or three times the price of an open source solution.
I know that it has been answered, but I will put my 2 cents. Why are you wondering about the cost of ASP.net? In my opinion, the choice of technology in your case (1-2 ppl development freelancer team) should be governed by technology familiarity. If you are an ASP.net expert, the expense of buying the products and MSDN subscription is well-worth it, because it's your primary language of choice that you know well, hence the projects that you implement, will be done better and faster, so it makes sense to stay with it.
However, if you happen to know another technology just as well and you are comfortable that you can deliver a robust product on-time with it, it may be worth it to go low cost. As a contractor, the main objective is to not lose time/money hence you pick a technology that balances your expenses and time spent learning it. In other words, if you are a Java expert, there is no point of paying for asp.net. If you know asp,net well already, then sure, stay with it.
The clients rarely care whether you used Ruby, PHP, Python, Java or ASP.net. They care about time lines, their cost and quality.
I find that it does not cost much money to use. It does infact cost a pretty penny to get windows based hosting. Visual studio is also expensive. After those, though, not many expenses are encountered.
If you want to use the more professional versions of Visual Studio to develop your applications: you will need to pay for that.
Also, there are a lot of commercial components available on the market. These will save you time or improve your product, but at a cost.
For open source, there are also a lot of components, but in this scene most is free/open.
My company (a large organization) is developing a "road-map" for evolving their rather old, tangled confederation of systems to an SOA model. A few people are pushing hard for using Websphere Integration Developer and Websphere Process Server as the defacto platform for developing future applications...because they feel IBM is a stable vendor, the tools are made for the enterprise, they drank the "business agility" BPEL kool-aid, etc.
Does anyone have positive or negative thoughts on this platform? Do the GUI tools help eliminate monotonous/redundant coding...or just obscure things and make things harder to maintain? Basically, do the benefits justify the complexity?
My experience with the IBM Java tool set is pure pain. Days to install lots of different versions of different components all incompatible with each other, discover a bug in component A get told to update to see if it fixes, updating component A breaks component B and C, get told to update these etc.
I find Eclipse with out the IBM extensions far more stable and quicker and provides more features (as its stable versions are a couple releases ahead of WID/RAD).
I would advise against going the IBM way for development tools. As for process server I have less experience but the people in my team using it seemed to enjoy it as much as I enjoyed WID. not a lot.
So far I havent been impressed by any tools with the "SOA" and/or "BPM" labels on them. My "roadmap" would be very very iterative to see some results with the archetecture as fast as possible while trying to grab some of the easy fruits. That way you gain your feel for what works for you and your people.
I would never let any vendor push me anywhere in the "scuplturing" of the architecture.
I agree with other users complaining about WID. The only reason we are using WID is that a decision was made a while back to use IBM products across the board by our sales department.
That's right, our sales department made the decision to use IBM products.
Development has been painful and frustrating. We have lots of stability problems with Process Server, sometimes it doesn't want to start or shutdown properly. Yeah you can easily draw processes in the IDE, but most any toolset provides that functionality these days. It is nothing special or unique to WID or IBM. IBM is a few iterations behind mainstream.
There are plenty of open source implementations out there that offer great support. Checkout JBoss or RedHat, they are pretty good. If that doesn't float your boat, you can always use Apache tools.
Walter
Developers don't choose WID, WMB, or WPS. Managers do, because IBM is a "stable vendor".
Look at JBoss, or K.I.S.S.
WID/WPS is actually pretty simple. The original intention was for analysts and business people to "compose" services (DO NOT LET THEM DO THIS!) so the UI is simple and easy.
Most of the work will be in defineing and implementing the back end services which depending on the platform will mostly involve wrapping existing code in SOA service.
The most important thing to bear in mind is that SOAP is technoligy and SOA is an architecture and a state of mind.
There is a zen to a succesful SOA implementation. Its all about "business services", if you have a service that you cannot describe to a business user in less than six words you have done it wrong! Ideally the service name alone should be enough to describe the functionality of the service.
If you end up with a service called "MyApp.GetContactData" described as "get name, addresses tel fax etc." then you are there. If You have a service called MyAppGetFaxNoFromOldSys" described as "Retrieve current-fax-nmbr from telephony table in legacy system" you are doomed!
Incidently most of the Websphere tooling for WS* is pretty nice. But I would recommend the very wonderful SAOPUI tool from http://www.eviware.com which is very good for compsing/reading WSDL based messages and also function as a useful test client or server.
Do the GUI tools help eliminate monotonous/redundant coding...or just obscure things and make things harder to maintain? Basically, do the benefits justify the complexity?
As a Developer, I find the tools at varying levels of being bug free. 6.0.1 was a pain, 6.2 is so much better. But once you develop with the tool, there is minimal effort to maintain it. I develop in hours what java developers take days to do. It is also easy to maintain as changes can be made very quickly. I cannot answer your question from the perspective of an architect or a Manager but i would agree with comments of some others here.