I was reading this posting from my friend and colleague, Phil Hunt, in which he talks about the ongoing discussion between Dave Kearns and Kim Cameron about the death of meta-directories.
Not only is he correct in pointing out that Kim's definition of Meta 2.0 is exactly what virtual directory has been since 1.0, but it's interesting to see that some virtual directory vendors continue to push something that looks very much like meta-directory 1.0.
This something is persistent cache and is a code word for a locally stored meta-verse, which is basically contains a roll-up of all the remote data. I can assure you that Kim Cameron knows exactly what a meta-verse is...he probably invented it at Zoom-it.
Regardless of whether you call it a meta-verse or a persistent cache, the same mechanics apply. You're in the business of synchronizing data between repositories, with all he problems that arise from that.
Glad Microsoft now realizes that virtual directory (or as they call it, meta-direcory 2.0) is the way to go. Wish we could all agree on some standard terminology for these kinds of things, though. It would really help the customers.
Technorati Tags: meta-directory, virtual directory
