Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
customers
Case study: Brussels
community website
• Customer
– Brussels hoofdstedelijk gewest
• Goals
– Reinforce economy by creating a digital local community
• Must-have features
– Works offline: permanent presence on the user’s phone
– Website integration
www.citylive.be 2
Functionality: online city
community
www.citylive.be 3
Solution architecture:
Citylive Community Services
Platform
• Functionality
– Service creation
– Service delivery
– Service management
• Technical
– SOA architecture
www.citylive.be 7
Solution hardwarde
• Hosting:Kangaroot
datacenter with Global
Crossings, Tiscali and
FreeBIX 1GB
connections
• Servers: HP cluster
with SAN as virtual
server host
• Mobile phones:
everything that runs
Windows Mobile or
Java J2ME
www.citylive.be 8
Solution software: Hydra
• Functionality:
– Collection of enabling services out-
of-the-box
– Central & secure repository for
profile and application data
– Provides abstraction layer for
applications & websites using
simple API’s
– Controlled environment handling
privacy/authentication/authorizatio
n
• AD based authentication of
services (internal or external)
• Impersonation for non-
authenticated service
consumers
• Authorisation: own service or
CSF
www.citylive.be 9
Solution software: Application
creation
www.citylive.be 10
Solution software: Mobile
Widget engines
• Reference
implementation
on .NET Compact
Framework
• After validation,
porting to J2ME,
Javascript, Flash
• Symbian: tried, but
too fragmented /
difficult process /
weird architecture
www.citylive.be 11
Operation / system
management
• Service Operator: Has a web-based management interface
• Widget authors: publish their apps and remain responsible
(are supported through separate glowe.org website and can
come to information sessions)
• Community members: can transfer ownership of data entities
in the system to each other. Escalation process with manual
intervention if no agreement
• Users: select their own content & widgets, create their own
accounts, distribution by SMS and self-installation
• Technical operations: regular process monitoring / server
monitoring with MOM, regular DB and software maintenance
schedules
www.citylive.be 12
Development cycle for mobile
• Starts on PC
prototyping in .NET on desktop before implementing in .NET CF
(is one of the bis advantaged of Windows Mobile)
• Methodology: Scrum++
agility linked with the room to breath for some innovation
www.citylive.be 14
Influence of future evolutions
from MS
• XAML: would make a great open cross-platform
mobile abstraction layer (please)
• SQL server compact: gets you there fast, but needs
to open up to other platforms to be viable outside of
corporate walls. (e.g. use XML schemes in WCF)
• Popfly (mashup dev tool): will really take of if given
some mobile service delivery blocks
• DirectX: user input,video rendering,sound and 3D
are big problems in mobile. MS has a nice
architecture here
• Directpush: Don’t keep the magic for Activesync,
open up the API to ISV’s.
www.citylive.be 15
Stay in touch
blog.citylive.be www.citylive.be
www.citylive.be 16