Is there a real need to keep a pair of gateway servers at 8.02? Couldn't 8.51 gateway servers running CORBA and DIIOP query both 8.02 and 8.5.1 mail servers? Has there been a change in the remote call syntax between 8.02 and 8.51?
We have not yet executed any code against an 8.5.1 server, so we are not yet in a position to answer this. However, based on the fact that we are now branching our code based on template build version and not server version, this can work, assuming that the Java API calls and implementations from IBM are compatible.
Will the code specify the port number so we do not need to run the http server? Specifically, will the createsession call be like: Session s = NotesFactory.createSession("myhost.east.acme.com:63148")
Yes we indicate the port during connection. The port is retrieved from the ese database.
On DNS and IP address issues, we expect the call to reference a DNS name and not an IP address and we would rather not have to use the http task so we do not need to provide anonymous access in order to retrieve the diiop_ior.txt file. Can we expect this file to contain a DNS name and not an IP address?
In ESE 1 we used to validate DIIOP task via HTTP through the ior text file. All DIIOP sessions require a valid user name and Internet password. No anonymous access is done.
On including a task to make sure that the mail servers can be resolved using their DNS entry (host and domain appear in the fully qualified internet host name in server document).
We are using the host name from the fully qualified Internet host name field. ESE 1 is working today like this.
On including a task to enable DIIOP, will the anonymous authentication option be used?
All connections are made using the actual user's Domino credentials, or the master account that has been setup for that purpose.
Which security options need to be set in the security tab of the server documents? (Access server, Allow agents, etc)
There are no special settings required for this as far as the Java code for Siebel to Notes is concerned. We suggest you check configuration of current ESE 1 gateway servers to be sure. With regards to the Notes to Siebel path, if there are going to be entries in this area, please set to the ID that the Domino group who will use to sign the email template.
What is the Maximum Internet Name and Password access setting needed for user mail files? I believe the DIIOP login user is restricted to that level.
Our access would need to be at editor level. We run under either the user's own credentials, or our master account. Under ESE 2, we can set up the master account with delegation access to the user's calendar. In that scenario, the account name can be listed as No Access, but with permissions to access public documents.
Will transmissions over the DIIOP port be encrypted using SSL? If yes, do we already have a key ring defined?
No. SSL over DIIOP is used.
Will connection pooling be used to allow multiple sessions to be created with the same ORB (Object Reference Broker). What is the maximum number of concurrent sessions expected? Will the ESE 2 code limit the number of sessions created to a max value? Will admins have access to this value if we need to modify it?
The current ESE is managed by an internal ESE scheduler, which initiates and terminates connections and a built-in connection manager, which has internal logic to balance connections. The ORB pooling is a planned feature and is not currently used because of the risk of blocking
operations in a session that will share the same ORB. Hence, the ESE features aforementioned were introduced.
On the Java API creating meetings and appointments. According to IBM, this is the first time a vendor has decided to use this API to create meetings and appointments. We would like to know which scenarios will be tested for the two-way sync: such as rescheduling one single repeating entry, updating the list of participants of one repeating entry, cancelling meetings, delegating meetings (ESE 2 to non-ESE 2 user, non-ESE 2 user to ESE 2 user), copying a memo into a calendar entry.
We have a complete QA process in place. Most of the test scenarios you mentioned above are covered. Hence, we can provide you the test plan and associated documents if you wish. However, we do not have a specific code for the last item: "Copying a memo into a calendar entry". From our point of view, this is just another modification to the calendar entry. When the user saves it (assuming the document is marked for syncing and its not saved as a draft) it will sync.
Also how will this process interface with room and resources? For example, can a person on Siebel reserve a room? If a meeting including a room reservation is updated on Siebel, will this room reservation be preserved when meeting is synched back to user mail file?
We are only making surgical modifications to the Siebel UI to support a better implementation of repeating events. For other advanced scheduling features, such as room reservation and free time searches, our users would need to use the native Notes interface. This is one of the core reasons that our users want to sync SFA with Domino, so that they can create meetings using the rich set of Domino features, and have those available in SFA.
We would like also to make sure that any entry coming from Siebel will be created in the user's mail file with an unique tag (a field name) identifying this new meeting as "coming from Siebel". For debugging purposes, can this tag reference the id number - if there is one - of the corresponding calendar entry in Siebel?
We do have a flag field in the calendar document to indicate that a document is syncing with ESE. Currently, we do not have a field to indicate which side of the sync originally created the document, but if there is a need for that, we could certainly do so. To date, we have not had such a requirement. In addition, please note that we do not store ids from other systems since there is no one-to-one mapping between Notes documents and Siebel records. Our synchronization services provide the UNID of the Notes document being modified to the ESE Core component, which identifies the related ids on the other side.
Please list and document all the health check tools that can be used to verify that all the components of ESE 2 are working properly (ESE core and ESE LDAdapter). Please provide a complete list of all the error codes and instructions on how to resolve issues encountered.
We have a user manual containing all these. We can provide training around the ESE admin facility.
