Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with IBM WebSphere Application Server.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
The solution could improve the integration.
It is very tough to get developers. It is not open, so there is a shortage of its knowledge in the industry. We have to get freshers and train them. We can't just go out there in the market and get developers who are proficient in IIB. I have attended several boot camps on AI and other products of IBM. Similar to what IBM is doing with big data and AI, IBM should open up IIB so that there is a lot more knowledge. They should open up the WebSphere application so that there is a lot more knowledge. The business logic side of it is sort of missing in the sense that if I want to track and measure velocity, it is not really available. You have to buy another application and embark on a separate implementation. Instead of having different licensing, IBM DataPower should be integrated with WebSphere. It will allow us to build the business layer and rules a lot more efficiently, rather than developing rules within the application. It would be good if we can set up the business layer through parametrization rather than development. IBM DataPower has the business rule and the controls, and if it can be integrated, it would be fantastic. It will help the application in working better in terms of security features and business logic. If you're going to use it for open banking, you will be able to monitor velocity on the total pricing. Its price is a bit expensive. They should improve its price to compete with other applications that are out there, which we are also exploring.
I'm not certain if the WebSphere solution was deployed by IBM. There are a lot of complexities in how the solution was actually built and deployed, which means troubleshooting on management for us is pretty difficult. One of the biggest issues that we've had is there are certain features that we required that were hardcoded into the solution itself. When you manage them for making any architectural or solution changes, it becomes very difficult and near impossible to do. With respect to that, we tried to change the SSL certificate that would be in use, and because of how we tried to change the SSL certificate, we tried to change the DNS mover that it was pointing to. There were hardcoded elements in the solution that didn't make it very easy for us. At the end of the day, we just kind-of renewed whatever services that we had already ongoing with it, which was a duplicate payment with what we had from other sources. We couldn't take advantage of the shared resources that we had before. We now have to maintain it as an isolated instance. Based on the field and based on the build that was provided, we've noticed a lot of constraints in terms of the performance now. Due to GDPR and other issues, not everybody is able to utilize cloud services. That's something that people need to be aware of. The company needs to be clear on the business use case and how they need to maintain compliance with its policies and regulations. Some of the feature sets that we found a little lacking in this particular solution. By now they've probably changed the ability to embed and utilize the rich media content and web presence. Our site is basically little image JPEGs, and that's it. We have low embedded video. We have low dynamic speech response for mobile viewing, we have low integration or extension for mobile apps. We have low integration as well as for dynamic content of bits from other sites. For some of our clients who wish to display information on our website, we actually have to lift the content, reform our tips, and recreate it into the content management engine.
The availability of the solution needs improvement. The product should be more enhanced and responsive. We need to have the capabilities to customize it a bit more. Their pricing is always too high. The user interface isn't too impressive. The stability of the solution could be much better. The solution's technical support could be improved. They can be too technical and too detailed.
Cloud service offering should be improved because the future is in the utilization of the PaaS provided by principal cloud providers; I mean that it would be very useful to have the possibility to use WebSphere as a service like many other tools has already done.
Some things are very difficult to do, so the interface and usage could be more intuitive for those. The main complaint that my customers have about this product is the price.
It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving. WebSphere is not light enough to implement high available applications like gateways. But WebSphere has more configuration abilities and customizability.
Nowadays the industry is moving towards a more open-source operating framework. The cost factor is huge. It's very pricey compared to other open-source stacks. In the future, we'll deal with the IBM Stack so we might move to a compact server and other open-source alternatives which are comparatively less in terms of cost. They should make the solution more lightweight and not bundle everything into a single product. The solution would benefit from having a different licensing model.
In the next release of this solution, I would like to see support for the Arabic language. Better and easier integration with other solutions, such as DB2, would be an improvement.
The computing resources required to run WAS could be reduced so that we can use a smaller virtual machine to run the application. I would like WAS administration tasks to be completed via scripts, rather than GUI.
What do you like most about IBM WebSphere Application Server?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the community!