Related
We are exploring the use of Oracle Workspace Manager, and our use case is a bit outside what I think was the intention of the system, so I was hoping for some feedback - either is this conceptually ok, or is there a better way?
We are redoing our budgeting and planning system. As part of the planning process, we create these scenarios where different options are explored. In some cases, these scenarios form the basis for other scenarios, in other cases they do not. However, these scenarios are not temporary areas, they are permanent and must continue to exist forever. So, we would not be merging changes back into the live workspace. This means a proliferation of workspaces, and also that we would need to write reports that compare workspaces. We are looking into the various metadata views to explore how to make these comparisons, and while it is straightforward to do so it does not seem terribly convenient. This makes me wonder if we are going about it incorrectly.
The other major use case is the tracking of revisions to the budget as part of a work planning process. Users can make revisions, submit them for approval, and then once they are approved, they must be preserved so that whatever changes were made can be later easily identified and reported on. We are struggling to decide if we want a workspace for each of these things (which potentially would be many hundreds of workspaces for a planning period) or if we can do something with savepoints.
we are on 11g.
Thanks for any suggestions.
Chris
Many poeple have online startups in their head that may potentially attracts millions, but most of the time you will only have minimal budget (time and resource) to start with so you want to have it delivered within a year's time. Short after launch, you are bound to perform one or a series of upgrades that may include: code refactor to newer foundation, adding hierarchy(ies) in software architecture or restructure database(s). This cycle of upgrade/refactor continues as:
New features avaiable in latest version of the language(s)/framework(s) you use.
Availability of new components/frameworks/plugins that may potentially improve the product.
Requirement has changes it's direction, existing product wasn't designed to cope with new needs.
With above as prerequisite, I want to take this discussion serious and identify the essence of an upgradable solution for a web application. In the discussion you may talk about any stages of development (initial, early upgrade, incremental upgardes) and cover one of more of the following:
Choice of language(s) for a web application.
Decision for using a framework or not? (Consider the overhead)
Choice of DBMS and its design
Choice of hardware(s) and setups?
Strategy to constant changes in requirements (, which can be a natural of web application)
Strategy/decision toward total redesign
Our company's web solution is on its fourth major generation, having evolved considerably over the past 8 years. The most recent generation introduced a broad variety of constructs to help with exactly this task as it was becoming unwieldy to update the previous generation based on new customer demands. Thus, I spent quite a bit of time in 2009 thinking about exactly this problem.
The single most valuable thing you can do is to employ an Agile approach to building software. In particular, you should maintain an environment in which a new build can be (and is) created daily. While daily builds are only one aspect of Agile, this is the practice that is most important in addressing your question. While this isn't the same thing as upgradeability, per se, it nonetheless introduces a discipline into the process that helps reduce the chance that your code base will become unwieldy (or that you'll become an Architect Astronaut).
As far as frameworks and languages go, there are two primary requirements: that the framework be long-lived and stable and that the environment support a Separation of Concerns. ASP.NET has worked well for me in this regard: it has evolved in a rational manner and without discontinuities that invalidate older code. I use a separate Business Logic Layer to manage SoC but ASP.NET does now support MVC development as well. In contrast, I came to dislike PHP after a few months working with it because it just seemed to encourage messy practices that would endanger future upgrades.
With respect to DBMS selection, any modern RDMS (SQL Server, MySQL, Oracle) would serve you well. Here is the key though: you will need to maintain DDL scripts for managing upgrades. It is just a fact of life. So, how do you make this a tractable process? The single most valuable tool from any third-party developer is my copy of SQL Compare from Red Gate. This process used to be a complete nightmare and a significant drag on my ability to evolve my code until I found this tool. So, the generic recommendation is to use a database for which a tool exists to compare database structures. SQL Server is just very fortunate in this regard.
Hardware is almost a don't care. You can always move to new hardware as long as your development process includes with a reasonable release build process.
Strategy for constant changes in requirements. Again, see Agile. I'd encourage you not to even think of them as "requirements" any more - in the traditional sense of a large document filled with specifications. Agile changes that in important ways. I don't keep a requirements document either except when working on contract for an external, paying customer so that I can be assured of appropriate billing and prevent feature creep. At this point, our internal process is so rapid and fluid that the reports from our feature request/bug management software (FogBugz if you want to know) serves as our documentation when documenting a new release for marketing.
The strategy/decision for total redesign is: don't. If you put a reasonable degree of thought into the process you'll be using, choose mainstream tools, and enforce a Separation of Concerns then nothing short of a complete abandonment of HTTP and RDBMSs should cause a total redesign.
If you are Agile enough that anything can change, you are unlikely to ever be in a position where everything must change.
To get the ball rolling, I'd have thought a language/framework that supports the concept of dependency injection (or Inversion of Control as is seems to be called these days) would be high on the list.
You will find out that RDBMS technology is not easily scalable. All vendors will tell you otherwise yet when you try multiple servers and load-balancing the inherent limitations will show up. Everything else can be beefed up with "bigger iron" and may be more efficient code but Databases cannot be split and distributed easily.
Web applications will hopefully drive the innovation in database technologies and help us break out of the archaic Relational Model mind-set. It is long overdue.
I recommend paying a lot of attention to this weak link right from the start.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Hey all. I would like to get some insight on a question that I have been trying to find some information about. If you are the solo developer that is building a project from ground up, how do you manage the project? In the past, I have worked on a few personal projects that have grown into fairly large projects. In almost all of those projects, I have tried to wear the hats of all the roles that would normally be in place during a normal software development project (i.e. Product Owner, developer, architect, tester, etc.). It seems that when I leave the project for some time and come back, it is extremely hard to get back into the rhythm of what I was doing. So with that, I have some questions:
If I know the requirements (at this
current time), do I record them
anyways? If so, how do I go about
doing this, and how do I manage these
requirements? Product backlog,
features list, etc?
If this is the case, are full blown product backlogs or use cases a little overkill?
How does one efficiently appropriate
his/her time to each respective role?
What would be a normal flow of events
that one would follow? Start coding
immediately, write down user
stories/use cases, then go into
OOA/D?
What diagramming/modeling would be sufficient for this level? Domain model, class diagram, etc?
Basically, I was curious how everyone out there in the SO community would go about developing a project from inception to deployment when you are the lone, solo developer. What steps, documentation, and other project related activities are needed to help bring this project from an impractical, hobby project to something more professional? Any help, references, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
The most difficult part, I have found, about developing solo is that it's just tough to keep yourself driving forward. Even if you're doing this to make a living (AKA, running your own software business), unless you have pressing needs (AKA, you're going to starve if you don't make money) it can be difficult to sit down and just code.
From your perspective, I would recommend following good software practices where it makes sense to. For example, if I were a solo software developer, I would have no reason to create a collaborative development environment. All I really need is an SVN server, my IDE, and a place to record documentation (might setup a wiki or a website or something). I would personally create a realistic schedule to follow and would work on sticking to that.
As for level of effort of documentation, that really depends on you and the product you are developing. For example, I would definitely recommend recording your requirements. Unless your product is trivial, there is no way you'll remember them all and why you wanted certain ones over others. Managing a full backlog, however, can be a job in and of itself. In the solo programmer case this may not make sense.
Basically, the point I'm trying to get across (and should be followed with every project - not just in this case) is have just enough management that makes sense. The rest should be focused on the work and the development of the product.
Something else you may want to look into is reading this - Agile Programming Works for the Solo Developer. There are other, similar, articles out there. Might give you some good thoughts.
If I know the requirements (at this
current time), do I record them
anyways? If so, how do I go about
doing this, and how do I manage these
requirements? Product backlog,
features list, etc?
I have two lists of features:
A high-level view which states the scope of the finished product
A list of the features which I'm implementing in this iteration
Because I don't need to communicate it to other people (yet) I tend to write down the things that I don't know about the project (if I already know it there's no need to write it down): it's when it gets too complicated, or when there are details which I haven't defined but need to define, that I start to define them in writing.
I did however try to investigate/make a business-case for the project before starting coding.
How does one efficiently appropriate
his/her time to each respective role?
I did non-programmer, product-owner thinking at times when I had to be away from the computer anyway.
Apart from that, my cycle is:
Implement more functionality
Integration-test it
[repeat as above]
Every 3 to 6 months I compare the new-functionality-accomplished against my estimated schedule, and then recalibrate: i.e., make a new list of the highest-priority features to implement in the next few months.
What would be a normal flow of events
that one would follow? Start coding
immediately, write down user
stories/use cases, then go into OOA/D?
I started with working part-time or in my spare time, to make sure that I had:
Understood the required functionality
Made significant architectural decisions
Written any throw-away prototypes as necessary to learn new technology
After that I was ready to start developing full-time.
What diagramming/modeling would be sufficient for this level? Domain model, class diagram, etc?
I'm not using diagrams at all (except for sketches of the UI). By structuring the code, and refactoring, I'm able to know/remember/rediscover/decide which software components implement what functionality.
It seems that when I leave the project
for some time and come back, it is
extremely hard to get back into the
rhythm of what I was doing.
You need to comment your code more. If you leave the code, come back in two weeks, and can't remember how the code works, you need more comments.
If I know the requirements (at this
current time), do I record them
anyways?
Yes, for the same reasons stated above.
how do I manage these requirements?
A feature list is OK, provided you have enough detail in each feature to jog your memory.
How does one efficiently appropriate
his/her time to each respective role?
Break down each feature into smaller and smaller tasks, until you feel like you can do each task in a half day or less.
What would be a normal flow of events
that one would follow?
That depends on your development style. In general I would follow a clear but simple architecture, avail yourself of software patterns where practical, and provide adequate unit tests for your code as you go.
What diagramming/modeling would be
sufficient for this level?
Sufficient diagramming/modeling to make the project clear in your head.
What steps, documentation, and other
project related activities are needed
to help bring this project from an
impractical, hobby project to
something more professional?
Other than what I have already mentioned, make sure you have a good source control system and daily backups in place.
Good luck!
If you believe there is a chance that you're going to work on the project for some amount of time, leave it, and then come back to it at a later date...your best bet is to treat the documentation for the project the same as if you were working with a large team.
That means documenting requirements (even if they're from yourself), writing use cases (if functionality is going to be complex, otherwise some other form of documentation could suffice), and some level of UML diagraming (or other domain specific diagram) which could include activity diagrams/class diagrams/etc.
That way, when you leave the project for some amount of time, you can come back to a well documented idea and pick up where you left off.
As a side note, I try to do the majority of those things no matter what...that way if I ever find somebody interested in working on the project with me, I can get them up to speed quickly and get them on board with my ideas.
This is how I work, YMMV:
Keep a spreadsheet for high level of everything - list of your projects, and some top-level items/todos/reminders
Create a "project" folder for each product/project you have or work on, and create a strucuture to contain documentation and code for the project.
Keep a top-level "catch-all" document for each project, in the root of this folder. Keep you ideas, research, notes etc in this doc.
Then if you want to get organized, keep an MS project file (or similar) and plot out timelines for the various steps in each project. This is good for tracking progress on each project and make sure you arent forgetting anything. Basically keeps you honest with yourself.
And if you need to track progress on project work you are doing for clients, I understand Basecamp is a good solution for this. I am currently evaluating it for my own company. See www.basecamphq.com
Even as a solo developer, you should document at least the overall features of your project, and then the requirements for the particular feature you are working to complete, and then maybe produce a short pseudo-code for the functionality you're currently working on.
That way, if you do end up breaking away from that project, you can get back to it and see where you're up to easily enough. It's also pointless getting too far ahead of yourself with details for this same reason.
It's also a neat motivational tool for a solo developer - getting through and ticking things off is a way to show progress - something that you can start to feel you're not making when you're chewing through a couple of thousand lines of code and it seems like you're still miles away from actually having 'module x' completed.
Lastly - with regards to code comments - I at least try and fill out what actions/behaviour a new function should have in an outline, and then write the code in between the comments. Also, it is useful having plain English explanations of why you're branching in an if/else to support the logic in the condition...
I belive that better results in solo development one can achive with appropriate tools support and tasks that compensate lack of ohers people and help to organize working time. Any tool that generate metada with minimal create time cost describing your software is helpful.
VCS and tools for tracking user actity/code changes history - very important is to add good commit messages
mind-mapping tools for storing project related data (e.g. XMind), blacboard is useful too :)
time tracking tools (e.g. Toggl.com)
write a lot of acceptance test and use acceptance testing frameworks
Of course these clues also fits in non solo development :)
As a lone developer, I've found that your time is very expensive. This means that you have to balance sustainability and momentum - even though you are just one guy, you have to do things so that the you six months from now can go back and look at old stuff without wasting time, without spending so much time maintaining the systems that it compromises your flow.
Your question suggests that you are thinking in terms of fairly heavyweight tools and processes, but the 80/20 rule applies - for example, you can nail documentation well enough by TDD, using the doc tools of your platform to generate API docs, plus a Wiki for specs, lists, etc.
In that vein, I would suggest that you choose your platform carefully. The question about modelling suggests that you are using a platform that produce a lot of code and artifacts, but you may be able to get most of the functionality for much less management overhead elsewhere. Today I'm working on a .NET Web app that I wrote "the right way", but now realize that I could have delivered the same functionality much more efficiently in this case by using PHP with a PHP MVC framework to keep a clean structure.
Specific tools that I'd recommend:
A distributed version control system (much less overhead than centralized)
The most lightweight platform that you can use that has good tooling
A Wiki to easily capture and maintain small and large bits of content
Whatever testing framework that you can use, right from the start of the project
A lightweight TODO list system that you can access from anywhere
I used to work on a very small team (one dba and one C# developer). Even then I found it very useful to have written requirements, formal tests, source control and bug tracking (we used bug tracking for our features as well as bugs). It helped us to not forget anything and a year later when you were doing maintenance, you had something to research though to help you undersatnd what you did. Plus when the two of us left (as most people eventually move on) there was documentation there for the next person.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Let's say you work for a huge company which suddenly decides to do custom in-house software development. Additionally, they want to be able to offer successful developments to their customers as well (if any).
Now you are in charge of it.
What would you see as most important to build a successful software development infrastructure?
flexible to future growth
flexible on used technologies (projects with c, java, .net, web, mobile, ...)
What kind of tools (source control, forge, ...), hardware (virtual, seperate dev & production, ..), processes (guidelines, code reviews, ...), etc.
UPDATE: Please don't answer that you need the right people and the right tools. This is exactly what i am looking for.. What are the right tools and what people of what type would you hire first to join your team? Think of it as you will be the lead of that development.
Set yourself up to pass the Joel Test with at least a score of 10.
I think having the right people is going to be the most important. Nothing else will matter if your programmers stink.
Someone in charge who knows what they're doing.
Obviously, there are lots of factors, but here are the ones I'd say are crucial:
Hire smart people (and pay them what they're worth)
Select good tools appropriate for the kind of development (don't go for cheap tools)
Establish version control system and policies
Establish testing mechanisms and policies
Don't be afraid to outsource the stuff you don't know how to do
Get the best people for the job. If they aren't willing to pay for the best available, or give you a hard time over your personnel budget, you're off to a bad start.
Get the right tools for the job... software, hardware, support contracts from your vendors, etc.
Establish procedure early on for your development life cycle, and make sure that you have the people in place to make use of it. This is everything from how you evaluate Opportunity Assessments to Development, Testing, and post-production support. Make sure you have the people and the tools for each part of the life cycle.
Dont try to be flexible in technologies. First start by focusing on one technology (Java, .NET, whatever...) and then move to other if you need to. You will be able to solve problems using any technologies, but it is very hard to find people good in many technologies.
At the infrastructure level, Source Control is a must. Continuous integration is a plus. Take time to put in place a standard project layout that you will be able to evolve. It make it easier for developers to switch projects. Take time to put in place a good build process (Ant, Maven, in the Java world). Integrate your build process with your IDE so that developers dont have to wait 5 minutes to deploy their project every time they want to test a code change.
I agree with Guillaume: If you want to build a department from scratch, you need to focus. You need to build your team, have everybody grow into their new responsibilities, get to know each other etc. Trying to go into too many directions at once is the direction towards failure.
So, identify the technology you want to develop in. Since the primary goal in your example is in-house development, the in-house requirements will determine your decision. Build your team with that primary goal in mind.
For in-house development, you need at least two people who already know the company and its processes. (Two because one will definitely be ill or on holidays when the first major crisis hits you). On the other hand you need some outsiders, who are not entrenched by the "we have always done it like this" mindset, who can think out of the box. Those should also be at least two people, for the reason stated above. Your job as the team leader is to balance those two groups and integrate them into a team.
For future growth, always think in terms of organic growth.
Do not increase the team size by 200 %, hire one new guy here and another guy (or gal) there. Slowly build your team.
When you take on a new project, always think of expanding your teams expertise. Try something new with every project. That can be a new source repository, an automated daily build process, a new system to write specifications or documentation, or even a different technology (for example Java when you usually develop in .Net, Delphi or C++). Just make certain you never try to make a big leap in an important project. (I once worked for a company who decided to switch from VB 6.0 to .Net for the biggest project they had ever attempted before. They survived. Barely.)
That way your department will slowly but constantly expand its capabilities. Then when the opportunity presents itself to do development for an external customer, you will already have accumulated most of the knowledge you need in order to pull it off.
Oh yes, and smacl is right, too: You need solid QA/QM if you want your department to survive long term.
Start laying out (and follwing) your QA rules from day one. Keep them as short and flexible as possible. Add what you discover to be missing, and throw out what proves to be unnecessary or impractical.
Not sure this is what you wanted to know, but I felt the need to say it ;-)
Develop a strong QA strategy, including acceptance criteria and change control. Preferably keeping it lightweight to suit internal clients. In addition understand how to carry out requirements analysis, expectation management, and resource management.
Put another way, don't just wing it to create crappy solutions that waste more time than they save and are impossible to maintain. Take time to think about what you want and need, how you can achieve it, and what it is going to cost.
I will offer an answer more focused specifically on coding and the developers / architects role in addition to the previous answers on teams, version control, qa etc. which are of course all important.
Many of your decision is very dependant on your specific business and software structure (a single product code base, SOA, many projects etc.) But in general you should always spend significant time up front developing Core Software Infrastrcuture that will pay huge dividends during the SDLC.
Software infrastruture
Coding Naming Conventions Exception
Handling strategies Logging
Strategies Settings and Configuration
Base classes and Helper Classes
General Architecture and Layers
(Presentation, Facade, Domain
Entities, Data Stores etc.)
Design Tools such as UML 2.0
Requirements
Management / End user interaction
There are tons more, but these are certainly some basics to think about. All of the successful projects I have been involved with incorporated decent software infrastructure. I will also note that many of the project that fail have a common theme... lack of a common infrastructure in place. In most cases these failed projects are lead by a non-technical person that think they can simply throw a bunch of ideas at a few programmers and expect them to deliver in a few weeks.
Bottom line, you need to invest some up front planning and prototyping to ensure success in the long term!
Good luck.
Raiford
www.blacksaber.com
The first persons you should hire should be experienced senior level professionals. Then build up from them / with their input. Add the junior people later.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 14 years ago.
Improve this question
I've seen a lot of questions and discussions about build vs. buy, but most stick with the simplistic approach that you can simply do one or the other. Most of the time you have to either buy and integrate or build yourself. Either way you're in for some work.
In the next 30-60 days I NEED to implement a couple managerial projects to keep everyone from ripping their hair out and killing each other. The largest of which is a ticketing system (emails, support requests, self service, etc.).
There is no shortage of options but at the end of the day we'll have to buy whatever we decide to use, add all our clients and their users and make sure we keep things in sync over time. We'll also have to provide a single sign-on and do some design work to make it all look like we built it from scratch.
If we build we get to skip the integration pain points, albeit with a limited (but focused) feature set.
What do you typically analyze while making a decision like this? If it better to have 4-5 systems that do a very specific job well, or one monolithic system that does everything?
You've identified a key issue - when you buy you still have work to do, and potentially lots of it. Having said that my overall leaning every time is towards buy. Writing code is hard, debugging code is much harder - when you buy, you're not just buying the code/application you're buying the fact that it works - the latter is 90% of the benefit.
However, as your needs are pretty common, why not go with open source. This has two stand out benefits.
1) As you have access to the source, you can bend it to your will - ie no need to lash single sign on over the top of an existing system. Tailor the login modules to use your already existing infrastructure, therefore no need to keep things in sync, time savings, clean approach etc etc. Much open source acknowledges the real world by componentising (?) those aspects which are environement specific anyway. They're often DB/Identity agnostic.
2) If you choose wisely you will have a ready band of top tech staff who already understand the system ready to help - the only problem is they don't work for you (yet!).
My advice would be pick one of your easy targets - the ticketing system seems like the one, analyse whats out there that in the open source world that meets most/all of your needs. Evaluate and put out a request on Rent A Coder for any changes that are required. Sit back and await the results, which are hopefully excellent. You've lost a little time, and gained a lot of experience.
Open source does not equal Linux/Unix - lots of good stuff for .Net out there too.
One system is better for the following:
One data repository(i.e. the Database)
Easy way to link each system together, do cross referencing. No need to build intermediate importer/exporters/sync-ers
Allows for single log in. This is very useful in businesses to make sure everyone know where to find the right information. So more "what was the site for the bug tracking again..." Not everyone will use all the tools the majority of the time, and they will forget how to access and even use.
Everything has the same look and feel
Saves on training
Maintenance is cheaper. Everything is the same to update. Admins dont have to specialize in hear separate system.
But... obviously you're stuck with what you buy. Make sure to get a system if you can that you can build your own addins for, to match it to your busienss' model.
Obviously "it depends." My general rule is that if it's internal we buy it and integrate if required. Our corporate sys admin has a support line to someone external to our organization if she has issues and it isn't a huge project burdening our developers.
If it's part of a product I'm shipping, I build it or take bits of source as needed from open source libraries. There's nothing worse than someone else's black box code breaking your product. The fewer the dependencies in a shipping product the better, IMHO.
I'd lean toward buy for a support product like you mention. The good ones offer great integration points to shared authentication systems, user facing theming, and probably a boatload of features your customer service team hasn't realized they want/need yet.
But, what to analyze. The biggest thing for me when it comes to 'managerial' projects like this is opportunity cost. What else could my team be working on that will make our company significantly more money, get us more customers, etc? Of course these projects have some positive impact on the bottom line, but nothing compared to new products, improved products, etc. How long over time, including maintenance, will developers/pm's/testers spend on this managerial project? If you buy, integration points don't change often, but if you build, your customers (in house people) will be asking for new features constantly and you'll be in the position to maintain this project for the rest of your tenure.
Buy? What is this buy of which you speak, stranger?
Seriously, I haven't had to buy a piece of software for my own projects for a long long time. All my development tools are free, all my third-party libraries are free (not GPL). Even my OS is free. I have to pay for Windows for testing purposes but the majority of work uses tools that are cross-platform.
Anything that requires code not immediately available from free tools or libraries, I either write from scratch (all the algorithms are available for free on the web) or use my (huge since I'm so old) snippet library which I've been adding source code to for many years.
It's almost always quicker to buy ("obtain") than build unless the bought stuff is so crappy that integration is a nightmare. This can be mitigated by avoiding the latest whizz-bang stuff from suppliers that have little track record.
The more 'standard' your requirements, the better buying fits (Or to put it another way, don't reinvent the wheel). Conversely, the more unique your requirements the more you might consider building.
You quite rightly point out that even when buying there tends to be some customisation. Bear in mind that any customisation will cost you at each upgrade/patching time. I suggest that if your requirements are close to the business model supported by one of the tools you might buy that you serious consider realigning the business process to the vendors standard. If this is not possible ask if you are buying the correct tool.
I would suggest that if someone suggests building it for cost reasons run screaming. In my experience the cost of buying is well known and the cost of build is well hidden. Remember that you will be making a decision to keep coding for the life of the App (average of 7 years for a business app) but may be considering only the initial development cost when deciding between buy and build.
I have a strong preference for a single monolithic database but sometimes this is not workable. More important is to have a 'single source of the truth'; if you have multiple databases holding like data, pick one as the authoritative source of a given piece of data and have a process to maintain all others in agreement with that source. Preferable this will be automatic.
The monolithic system that does everything is the the Raison d'être for so many Enterprise applications. What I've found, however, is that if you're not willing to pay a buttload of money, you're going to have integration issues.
The 'best' solution is quite subjective, and any answer is as right as it is wrong, but if I were king, I'd probably go with the entrenched open source solution where it fit, and wrap web services around the items that needed to talk to each other. If I were king.
As a tangential point, there are free ticketing systems like RT (et. al.) that you need not worry about buying.