I was at the UK IBM Rational customer day yesterday, and there are quite a few people interested in Rhapsody/DDS integration.
At the moment there's some discussion about the level that the profile is pitched at (i.e. the fact that you have to create your own structs/publishers/subscribers by hand), and some people feel that all this should be auto-generated based on class structure. The main desire behind this is to decouple the system design from the DDS technology.
We (the IBM customers at the day interested in Rhap/DDS) are trying to present a united front on the improvements that are needed, and I wanted to get a feel from other people using the profile on this particular issue.
I personally feel that the level of the profile is appropriate, and that having to create a data structure independent of classes helps to design a more data centric system, but appreciate that everyone will not share this view - and I am open to any solid counter arguments.
I do, however, feel like the profile does need to be easier to implement - as it feels like hard work building up a system. Also I don't see how the current technique of using structures for the data model will fit in with data inheritance that is coming in with the new x-types standard (which I hear that IBM are thinking about bringing into the profile due to customer interest). Perhaps using specialised class bocks with attributes only would make data model design more user friendly. Perhaps this type of discussion would be better off in a separate thread.
Please share you thoughts and opinions, as we're hoping to start making enough noise for IBM to justify improving the profile.