Good new things are built every day. For every good new thing there are probably many not so good things built. For every ga-zillion good things, something turns out great and right for its time. Since it appears to me that all Learning Management Systems suck in substantial ways, maybe this one has a chance? Time will tell. Cheers, Wayne Google before you ask. (R. Theriault) On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Hans Forbrich <fuzzy.graybeard@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > Any technology is potentially useful under certain circumstances. > > I'd be asking the bigger 'how does this fit in our organization' questions: > - do we have the skills to support it? How 'spensive to get 'em? > - what is the backup/recovery strategy and has it been proven? > - what are the manageability capabilities? > - how scalable is it? (proof needed, not just a bit-head's assertion) > - are there references? > > Sounds like the management would deem this to be a mission critical app. > So I'd like some proof that the content management is robust. > > As a fellow dinosaur, I think you are correct in raising the questions. > Get someone with experience in the technology to provide trustworthy > answers. ;-) > > /Hans > > On 09/06/2011 9:22 AM, Blake Wilson wrote: > > Here at the University of Western Ontario we are looking at replacing our > current Learning Management System. The current choices seem to be similar > in technology and infrastructure - web tier, load balancer, application > tier, back end RDBMS and some sort of content management system for the > course content. > > However, the next release of one of our options will not have a RDBMS in > the solution. It will be replaced by Apache Jackrabbit. The new system will > have everything** treated as content, including grades, test questions and > answers, discussion threads, syllabi, personal profiles, chat messages, and > so on. > > This seems like quite a departure from normal RDBMS based solutions. Is > this a good idea? Am I being a dinosaur by thinking that this is not a good > idea? Do I need to keep up with the times? Is this the future of databases? > This really looks to me like a return to design of 20 years ago. > > Thanks, > Blake Wilson > > >