Paul_Booth
My feedback
-
214 votes
With the introduction of CoreWCF 1.0, we are re-evaluating this request. Performance, backwards compatibility, security, and technological longevity are key features that we are researching.
Please continue to share your use cases with us, as well as any key capabilities that your use case requires.
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
224 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
commented
How on earth was losing connector level failover ever allowed to go forward? My guess: the developers found it too difficult so persuaded those who should know better that it wasn't needed.
Paul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
commented
Having seen how the current configuration seems to work, it would look like it could be a rewrite.
If a JSON format text file were used as the base, then any text editor could be used. Possibly like the UFL interface where the ICU reads in an INI file, then provides guidance as how to proceed. This could be a utility tool that reads in a JSON text, allows further editing, then imports into AF, or just leaves the file to be read by the channel when it starts up. Maybe similar to StringBuilder in the current client? That allows substitution parameters wherever.
Paul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
112 votes7 comments · Customer Portal & PI Square » Customer Portal Overall · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
commented
Absolutely dreadful retrograde move. A cynic might think OSISoft is deliberately setting out to make life hard for firms who support multiple customers so as to get the support work itself.
Paul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
48 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
152 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
112 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
152 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
-
34 votesPaul_Booth
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Paul_Booth
commented
This is a requirement that I, and a number of other users, have identified as being very useful.
It's sad to see so much legacy work being tossed aside, sacrificed to the altar of "do it on the web". It is miles away from OSIsoft's original ethos which was to facilitate communication rather than prescribe how it should be done. For Microsoft systems WebAPI is a tedious substitute.