Cross Server Linking Display Response Times Inconsistent Producing Lackluster UX

Although the cross-server linking feature works, the UX is confusing and sometimes non-performant relative to link display. Link display response time on the target side is dependent on 1) the availability of browser data, 2) the sample time of every 60 seconds of the LDX server content (new llinks) and the actions of the user refreshing the module via content window and browser refresh. Consider this use case, two active change sets, a user creates a link via drag-n-drop in a side by side window arrangement, the target side display is updated within 5 seconds. This can be repeated multiple times, the user comes to expect this response time. The user doesn't see links on the source side and does a content pane refresh to display links because the link meta-data is stored on the source side. At this point the target side display is being updated from the browser. No link data has been delivered to the LDX server from the change set. If the user then does a content pane refresh, only the last link created shows up, all prior ones are omitted. The user does a browser refresh to get the links back, but the links won't show up because the change set has not been delivered. So the user delivers the channge set 1 ms after the 60 second sample time of the LDX server data. The user does a browser refesh and the link doesn't appear because the the link data wasn't in place. The user must refresh the browser after the link data is written to the LDX server. Eventually, all links appear on both sides but not until the user is totally confused as to why links show up very quickly sometimes and don't show up at all but eventually show up. GM will shorten its sample time from 60 seconds to the lowst possible sample time without hurting performance to start. Lastly, the LDX server in GM's cloud is using the JENA solution. GM will pursue replacing the JENA LDX server with a relational store. If this feature is left to operate as it does now, the user community will complain to their leaders. My tools group and IBM will suffer the brunt of criticism for delivering a feature that works poorly. Alternatively, IBM can improve the UI/UX and make it known to all future enterprise scale customers that it has an enterprise scale solution that no competitor can match; configuration management and dynamic linking at enterprise scale.