Title: RE: [soa-blueprints] The Myth of ESB... is it a blueprint or a pattern...
On
thing I would note is that the ideal of getting "legacy" to magically be exposed
through a service seems to be a bit counter intuitive.
They
are legacy because they don't or are not really designed for a
service.
Slapping them into an ESB doesn't necessarily make them a service and
there needs to be much more thought about taking "legacy" environments and
turning them loose into your SOA. Granted a lot of the legacy are based on a
CICS or some sort of mainframe environment which in some ways do have a notion
of services. But the granularity of those services is something to evaluate and
re-engineer to a certain extent.
Also
Policy in some cases can be in the infrastructure with validation of service
actors to a service. A service in some sense should care to much about that
unless there is functionality differences based on a policy of a
client.
Thoughts?
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, Steve G
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06,
2005 1:16 AM
To: Biske, Todd; Marchant, Dan R.;
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints]
The Myth of ESB... is it a blueprint or a pattern...
SOI isn’t in SOA-RM,
it aims to deal with the software side of the services and doesn’t include
composition/ /orchestration or proscribe how mediation should be
done.
I’ve been separating
(gratuitous plug for IT Week Webinar on Wednesday) the “ESB” world into two
separate elements recently both conceptually and for implementation.
There is the ESB that is really an Integration Service Bus, which is all about
turning your legacy systems into Services that can then play in the SOA
Playground. The other one is the Business Service Bus, which is about
taking the Services in the SOA Playground and adding the policy and mediation
control between those services. The ISB and BSB perform distinctly
different tasks, the BSB is about achieving IT/Business alignment and
flexibility, the ISB is about getting the legacy into a position where it can
be used as part of that alignment.
Make
sense?
Steve
From: Biske, Todd
[mailto:]
Sent: 06 December 2005 04:53
To: ; Jones, Steve
G;
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] The Myth of
ESB... is it a blueprint or a pattern...
I have a couple comments on this thread. First,
ESB lacks a clear definition. I'm here at the Gartner Summit in Orlando,
and that fact has been very apparent. If we're going to deal with SOA
Infrastructure as part of this TC (I haven't reviewed the SOA-RM stuff yet, I
had presumed infrastructural patterns belonged there), I'd prefer to call it a
mediation layer. That doesn't imply any particular architecture, only
that there is some logical processing occuring between a consumer and a
provider.
Second, I agree with Dan's comment on the realization of a
blueprint, versus the actual blueprint. In either case, I think our
focus should be in showing the different blueprints, the possible realizations
of those blueprints, and some pros/cons.
-tb
-----Original
Message-----
From:
To:
;
Sent:
12/5/05 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] The Myth of ESB... is it a
blueprint or a pattern...
In addition to this it may be a good idea to
define what a bus really
should do at a practical level.
This may be a
realization of a blueprint in my mind than an actual
blueprint. A bus is an
enabling technology unless people think it is an
approach?
2
cents.
- Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, Steve G
[mailto:]
Sent:
Monday, December 05, 2005 3:33 PM
To:
Subject: [soa-blueprints] The Myth of
ESB... is it a blueprint or a
pattern...
A question
to the group
Back in the old “Enterprise Application
Integration” days the vendors
pushed a model which had either a single
broker in the middle, or a bus
in the middle. The common element was
always that “one” thing in the
centre. We are now seeing the same
thing with ESB, the concept of a
single bus (product) that rules the
enterprise. With EAI one of the
biggest challenges was that product
centric view of the world which led
to organisations being left with
“legacy” EAI which is as much of an
issue as the applications it was meant
to make easy to access (any Monk
programmers out there?).
So
what my strawman is to this group (and as the Soalogic thing evolves
its
quite important) is that concept of bus federation is essential to
an SOA
Blueprint, you must assume that there will be multiple busses,
potentially
at all levels, these may use similar technology (even
identical) but the
principles of federation should be the default for a
well formed SOA.
Now is this a pattern or a blueprint, and if a
blueprint where should it be
considered. My viewpoint is that there
needs to be an official
counterpoint to the vendor view that takes a
Lord of the Rings (one ESB to
find them all and in the darkness bind
them) approach to delivery.
The best ESB is the one that assumes it
isn’t the only thing
around.
Steve
___________________________________________________________
Steve
Jones | Capgemini
CTO, Application Development Transformation
T
+44 870 906 7026| 700 7026| <http://www.capgemini.com>
www.capgemini.com
m:
<mailto:>
txt: +44 (0) 7891157026
Join the
Collaborative
Experience
___________________________________________________________
This
message contains information that may be privileged or confidential
and is
the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the
person to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are not
authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate,
distribute, or use
this message or any part thereof. If you receive this
message in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete all
copies of this
message.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.G.
Edwards & Sons' outgoing and incoming e-mails are
electronically
archived and subject to review and/or disclosure to someone
other
than the
recipient.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message contains
information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property
of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized
to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this
message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this
message.
