Random
Source Code
Random
A funny definition, invented by a set of elderly IT folks, as a set of IT systems that can interact without security, and a good excuse to get architecture approved bypassing security concerns.
The definition may become so wobbly that the full landscape is a trusted boundary, the VPN is a trusted boundary, System A to System B connection is a trusted boundary, a generic combination of system A B and C is a trusted boundary.
Therefore the polymorphism of this concept has been used and misused to get architecture approvals that bypass any poor's man common sense.
we shall stop using this trusted boundary concept because it became so vague that it was impossible to define and to use
An IT system which is the master system for the data that it owns and that is responsible for the full lifecycle of the data around it, and the processes around those data.
Customer Data is maintaining a big Database which is a System of Record.
Lifecycle API is a funny idiosyncratic name, invented by some young IT folks, to try to politically justify that the API is only responsible of the lifecycle of the Data itself but not of the data that flows through it, and that the API is not doing what it actually does i.e. Create Read Update Delete operations.
A funny API that was meant to be a global integration layer for content management, and resulted to be a mapping read only of four data fields (i.e. just the Read part of the CRUD).
It was not politically possible to call it global content API or global archiving API, it was not possible to call it with the original name of the API that it was copied and stolen from and therefore the funny name came along.
Lifecycle API is not an overlay/platform API, but just a CRUD interface on GAP
A counterintuitive and odd term used by some elderly IT folks as opposite to greenfield or greenfield project. Probably derived from Brownfield land (see wikipedia) or brownfield investment (see google).
It is used also to describe an IT corporate landscape as being a wasteland that has been refactored too many times and that has rabbit holes (e.g. firewall / interface bypass approaches), wormholes (e.g. quantum teleported data from one place to another) and blackholes (e.g. data blackholes where data or events disappears) all over the place.
Our chief Architect should answer the question why "System X" is not fit for purpose/fit for use in <corporate>âs brown field reality.
This crappy brownfield project was handed over to us as a disgrace.
An odd and politically correct way, used by some elderly IT folks , to say that we want or don't want to use such an IT system in our IT solution.
The fit for purpose connotation describe whether or not this use case was foreseen (even in the wildest imagination of some IT architect inventing the system).
The fit for use connotation describe the fact that the system was implemented so well or so badly that it can/cannot be used.
This global system is fit for purpose/fit for use for us.
This system is neither fit for purpose (it does not cover our requirements) neither fit for use for use (i.e. is badly broken and buggered).
Global Archiving Platform probably derived from gap between the legs of a girl.
It's a specific type of IT system for archiving missing features and not fit for purpose/fit for use.
GAP is a System of Copy not a System of Record.
Therefore you can copy stuff in there but you need to maintain a local copy.
WTF ? GAP has a gap ?
GAP has a gap (it's missing a feature).
GAP is a gap (it's not being realized).
A counterintuitive and odd term used by some elderly IT folks as opposite/dual to System of Record.
You can copy data in there but you shall have a copy of the original data with you.
Essentially is a way to avoid full blown responsibilities and requirements of a System of Record,
and cherry pick only requirements that are easy to implement.
This definition also is wobbly and specific for every single data object of the information model supported in the system.
Some people interpret it as lifecycle information is stored also else where, some people interpret this as the full information is stored also elsewhere.
Some people leave this poor man's details as "undefined behaviour" so that is possible to go through architecture approvals and it is then possible to resell and recast the system into something it was not fit for purpose/fit for use at the beginning.
GAP is a System of Copy
We are a System of Copy we are not responsible of Disaster Recovery, in fact you have a copy
We are a System of Copy we are not responsible for Lifecycle, in fact the System of Record is.
We are a System of Copy we are not responsible for GDPR regulations in fact you are.