| By Dave Chappell | Article Rating: |
|
| May 25, 2005 07:30 PM EDT | Reads: |
112,895 |
Myth #2: Microsoft is building an ESB with their "Indigo" project.
Microsoft's Indigo combines Microsoft's Messaging Queuing, its Component Object Model COM+, .NET, and Web services. What they are building is a message bus with Web services extensions. This is very different from an enterprise bus. A messaging bus exposes the details of lower-level messaging techniques and requires the writing of code to define the relationships between applications and services. The mantra of the ESB is configuration rather than coding, which removes the necessity of hardwiring relationships between interconnected applications. An ESB facilitates and promotes the use of loose coupling between applications, which are exposed through the bus as event-driven services. The good news here is that applications built on Indigo will at least be message based and therefore easier to integrate through an ESB.
That said, there are elements of the BizTalk Server that, correctly combined with Indigo, could start to look like an ESB. However, there is one missing element in the formula, in that BizTalk is still a hub-and-spoke integration broker and is subject to all of the caveats mentioned in the ESB versus EAI discussion. You can't split out the XML transformation engine from the rest of the BizTalk Server and expect to run it as a load-balanced service across multiple machines without incurring the cost and overhead of the entire Biztalk Server (see the previous discussion on EAI vs. ESB).
Myth #3: The adoption of WS-* specifications, such as WS-Reliability and WS-Reliable Messaging, obviate the need for an ESB.
An ESB should be designed to accommodate these evolving specifications as they become mature and achieve commercial viability. Evolving WS-* specifications will help make application endpoints more interoperable through an ESB.
As part of the evolving standards process of Web services specifications, there exists much uncertainty due to the many overlapping efforts underway. As these specifications mature and achieve widespread adoption, they will still require an infrastructure to support them. An ESB can provide a consistent model for building, orchestrating, and managing SOAs, while insulating the IT organization from changes in underlying interoperability standards.
A WS-Reliability implementation requires that there be an industry-proven reliable message persistence and store-and-forward processor to support it. A foundational component of an ESB is an enterprise messaging layer that provides quality of service of message delivery through messaging conventions such as message persistence, store- and-forward delivery, message acknowledgements, and interfaces with external XA-compliant transaction managers. The ESB implementation may also provide transparent routing of messages across sophisticated network topologies, and continuous availability of the messaging infrastructure through a fault-tolerant messaging server architecture. The science of making all of this work together to ensure reliability under high-stress enterprise environments requires many person-years of effort to get right.
That being said, ESBs that are implemented today using a proprietary messaging layer should also adopt one or more of the WS-Rel* as additional protocols or "on-ramps" for getting on and off the bus. However, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution and many combinations of messaging and protocol support are necessary.
Published May 25, 2005 Reads 112,895
Copyright © 2005 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.
More Stories By Dave Chappell
David Chappell is vice president and chief technologist for SOA at Oracle Corporation, and is driving the vision for Oracle’s SOA on App Grid initiative.
![]() |
yt67 03/03/05 07:09:34 AM EST | |||
Myth-busting: always entertaining. |
||||
![]() |
Jason 03/02/05 09:16:29 AM EST | |||
A good read! |
||||
![]() |
Javier Camara 02/10/05 04:19:02 AM EST | |||
(This same feedback also posted to another WSJ article about ESBs) I agree in that the ESB concept is over-hyped. For me, a SOA makes sense if it is viewed as a constellation of web services interacting among them. For this, something like a UDDI server is required for each service locating each other. For me, all this (i.e. services + directory) is just enough if only synchronous communications are used. If asynchronous communications are needed, then you need also publish/subscribe and store-and-forward, i.e. roughly what a MOM does. You can call it an ESB if you want, although I think this concept in the market encompasses several roles: An interesting thing to note is to implement points 1. and 2. you do *not* need business logic, while to implement 3. and 4. you do. As I said, I see roles 1 and 2 required in SOAs with asynchronous interactions. Roles 3 and 4 are also needed in many cases, mainly for integrating disparate systems. However, my main point against an ESB is that, in order to perform these roles, you do *NOT* need of a new, special concept like the ESB. *Any* service in the constellation of services can perform both routing and transformation. It can range from being a single component like an ESB (which I think is a bad idea), or it can just be a set of services (e.g. a different service performing specific adaptation for a system being integrated). For me, using a single ESB for 3. and 4. breaks the beauty of the SOA idea. You are supposed to made all your data and business logic of your organization available as services in order to be reused, and suddenly you put on top an ESB in which you put *more* business logic (routing and transformation). So my point is that this should be implemented just by means of regular services, and not by specific, central-piece new components called ESBs. Now, if for implementing routing and transformation you want to use Tibco, WebSphere or whatever, fine - however, the logic created by these products should be at the same level as the other services in the SOA, and not above. So I am not saying that orchestrating tools are not useful. They are. Only, they are not *imprescindible*; and at any rate they should be viewed just as more services in the SOA. However, this does not fit the marketing strategy of ESB vendors which show its ESB as an *enabler* of a SOA, instead of just one more *component* of it. |
||||
![]() |
Dave Chappell 02/03/05 09:54:43 PM EST | |||
We (Sonic Software) didn't re-lable our product to support the ESB wave, we actually invented the concept. We then worked with the analyst and journalist community to help create industry awareness of the new concepts that are introduced by ESB, which has resulted in a whole new product category. I would agree with you that there is a great deal of hype right now due to lack of understanding of what ESB is, which is compounded by the number of traditional middleware and EAI vendors who have clamoured to get ESB in their marketing literature without having a full understanding of what it means to have an ESB. Your comment about middleware with new clothes is well taken. You might get that impression depending on where you learned about what an ESB is. That is exactly what I am trying to point out with myth #1 in this article. A certain amount of hype is expected when a technology category begins to take hold and gain traction within serious IT projects. This can be disruptive to the industry as a whole. This is also the primary reason why I wrote the OReilly book on the subject of ESB--to act as the definitive guide to help educate and provide clarity on what makes up an ESB. Please don't shoot the concept of ESB down until you have had a chance to understand it. |
||||
![]() |
Larry 02/03/05 04:15:19 AM EST | |||
Not surprising that the representative of a company who over-hyped ESB in the first place, and relabeled their own product ESB to catch the service wave, should now try to claim that anyone who saw through the hype is guilty of spreading myths. |
||||
- Cloud People: A Who's Who of Cloud Computing
- Cloud Expo New York Speaker Profile: Dave Linthicum – Cloud Technology Partners
- Cloud Expo New York: Cloud Is Changing the Economics of Business
- Cloud Expo New York: Delivering Digital Marketing on the Cloud
- Cloud Expo New York: Deploying Hybrid Cloud for Performance and Uptime
- Big Data Isn’t About the Database, It’s About the Application
- BEA Updates WebLogic SOA Portal for Web 2.0 Era
- Cloudant to Exhibit at Cloud Expo & Big Data Expo New York
- Cloud Expo New York: Rethink IT and Reinvent Business with IBM SmartCloud
- How to Move Your Oracle Databases to Amazon EC2 Cloud
- The Accessibility of the Cloud
- Cloud Expo New York | Danger Ahead: Why File Sync Is NOT Endpoint Backup
- Cloud People: A Who's Who of Cloud Computing
- Cloud Expo New York: Best CIO Practices Shared from SHI’s Customers
- Cloud Expo New York Speaker Profile: Dave Linthicum – Cloud Technology Partners
- Examining the True Cost of Big Data
- Cloud Expo New York: Cloud Is Changing the Economics of Business
- Cloud Expo New York: How to Use Google Apps Script
- Cloud Computing Bootcamp at Cloud Expo New York
- Software Defined Networking – A Paradigm Shift
- Rackspace Hosting Named “Platinum Plus Sponsor” of Cloud Expo New York
- Cloud Expo New York: Why Big Data Is Really About Small Data
- Cloud Expo New York: Delivering Digital Marketing on the Cloud
- Cloud Expo New York: Deploying Hybrid Cloud for Performance and Uptime
- The i-Technology Right Stuff
- The Top 150 Players in Cloud Computing
- Who Are The All-Time Heroes of i-Technology?
- Where Are RIA Technologies Headed in 2008?
- Get the Message
- i-Technology Viewpoint: Is Web 2.0 the Global SOA?
- ESB Myth Busters: 10 Enterprise Service Bus Myths Debunked
- i-Technology Viewpoint: Thinking Outside the VC Box
- i-Technology Viewpoint: When to Leave Your First IT Job
- SOA Web Services Edge Conference Coverage on SYS-CON.TV
- SYS-CON.TV's "SOA Web Services" and "Enterprise Open Source" Programs To Air in December
- Five Reasons Why Web 2.0 Matters























