Comments on: Problems with Interwoven’s WAM (Workspace Archive Manager) product http://www.jasonplant.co.uk/2009/02/problems-with-interwoven%e2%80%99s-wam-workspace-archive-manager-product/ A law blog written by someone from IT or an IT blog written by someone who works for a law firm Sun, 29 Aug 2010 03:57:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jason http://www.jasonplant.co.uk/2009/02/problems-with-interwoven%e2%80%99s-wam-workspace-archive-manager-product/comment-page-1/#comment-225 Jason Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:55:54 +0000 http://www.jasonplant.co.uk/?p=138#comment-225 David, when we originally piloted the WAM product that is exactly how we had it set up. We got an awful lot of feedback from our business about the document number and their wish to have it preserved. It may be to do with every document being stamped with a reference. In a firm of our size it is difficult to explain clearly to everyone the concept of an "original document field", people liked knowing that the number in the reference is the number of the document. David, when we originally piloted the WAM product that is exactly how we had it set up. We got an awful lot of feedback from our business about the document number and their wish to have it preserved.

It may be to do with every document being stamped with a reference. In a firm of our size it is difficult to explain clearly to everyone the concept of an “original document field”, people liked knowing that the number in the reference is the number of the document.

]]> By: David Kiefer http://www.jasonplant.co.uk/2009/02/problems-with-interwoven%e2%80%99s-wam-workspace-archive-manager-product/comment-page-1/#comment-223 David Kiefer Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:17:36 +0000 http://www.jasonplant.co.uk/?p=138#comment-223 DocAuto's WorkSpace Manager product does archiving like WAM, but since there is no three-tier call open to developers to set document numbers, we have been forced to store the original document identification (server-database-number-version, since all of these together are the only way to guarantee a unique document) in a custom field. We take a lot of heat about not preserving document numbers, but there are so many situations where it is really impossible to preserve them (like combining the content from multiple libraries). Offsets are fine, but why is it so onerous to just have an "original document number" field? This is very common in systems that were converted from other platforms anyway... DocAuto’s WorkSpace Manager product does archiving like WAM, but since there is no three-tier call open to developers to set document numbers, we have been forced to store the original document identification (server-database-number-version, since all of these together are the only way to guarantee a unique document) in a custom field.

We take a lot of heat about not preserving document numbers, but there are so many situations where it is really impossible to preserve them (like combining the content from multiple libraries). Offsets are fine, but why is it so onerous to just have an “original document number” field? This is very common in systems that were converted from other platforms anyway…

]]> By: Jason http://www.jasonplant.co.uk/2009/02/problems-with-interwoven%e2%80%99s-wam-workspace-archive-manager-product/comment-page-1/#comment-124 Jason Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:50:59 +0000 http://www.jasonplant.co.uk/?p=138#comment-124 It's been confirmed as a bug. But I'm not sure it's scheduled into a new release. My guess is, as with other tools (rather than the core product) any fix will be in an 8.5 release rather than a patch. It’s been confirmed as a bug. But I’m not sure it’s scheduled into a new release.

My guess is, as with other tools (rather than the core product) any fix will be in an 8.5 release rather than a patch.

]]> By: Krystan Honour http://www.jasonplant.co.uk/2009/02/problems-with-interwoven%e2%80%99s-wam-workspace-archive-manager-product/comment-page-1/#comment-89 Krystan Honour Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:39:01 +0000 http://www.jasonplant.co.uk/?p=138#comment-89 Yup this is not good, good job there is a workaround though. For me obviously document numbers are sacrisanct because its effectively part of the data and an archivings product entire job is to take your data and move it maintaining integrity which if the numbers are changed it is not doing. Products like WAM always fill me a bit with dread, not because they are bad but mainly because what they do is so important and they tend to operate on vast swathes of data at a time thus when things go wrong they tend to go wrong big time. Good job with the workaround though. I take it the WAM issue has been recognised as a bug and will be fixed in a future release ? Yup this is not good, good job there is a workaround though. For me obviously document numbers are sacrisanct because its effectively part of the data and an archivings product entire job is to take your data and move it maintaining integrity which if the numbers are changed it is not doing.

Products like WAM always fill me a bit with dread, not because they are bad but mainly because what they do is so important and they tend to operate on vast swathes of data at a time thus when things go wrong they tend to go wrong big time.

Good job with the workaround though.

I take it the WAM issue has been recognised as a bug and will be fixed in a future release ?

]]>