Welcome!

SOA & WOA Authors: Pat Romanski, Trevor Parsons, Andreas Grabner, Elizabeth White, Ashley Stephenson

Related Topics: SOA & WOA

SOA & WOA: Article

ESB Myth Busters: 10 Enterprise Service Bus Myths Debunked

Clarity of Definition for a Growing Phenomenon

Myth #4: Pattern or Product: The term "Enterprise Service Bus" (ESB) is not really a product category; it is simply an abstract concept that can be applied toward a coupling of an existing application server and integration middleware.
An ESB is a highly distributable backbone upon which to build enterprise service-oriented architectures (SOA). Enterprises build service-oriented architectures, and an ESB is the backbone upon which to build it. As a result of the tumultuous disruption to the integration market caused by the advent of the ESB, some established integration vendors have laid down a smokescreen by saying that an ESB is simply an abstract pattern that can be overlaid across a composition of existing middleware and application server infrastructure that they already have. In fact, an ESB is definitely a coherent piece of infrastructure that you have been able to purchase from a number of vendors for at least a couple of years now. There are already dozens of ESB deployments in place across a variety of vertical industry segments including manufacturing, financial services, telco, and retail.

The definition of an ESB includes these basics:

  • A distributed services architecture, which includes a lightweight container model for hosting integration components as remote services
  • An enterprise messaging backbone that provides reliable delivery of messages between applications and services
  • XML Data transformation
  • Service orchestration and intelligent routing of messages based on their content
  • A flexible security framework
  • A management infrastructure that lets you configure, deploy, monitor, and manage your remote services
The distributed services architecture of the ESB allows the referencing of services via abstract endpoints, which are globally accessible across a federated namespace. The distributed services architecture is layered upon an interconnected system of lightweight service containers that allow remote services to be configured, deployed, managed, and monitored. These service containers are held together through a standards-based messaging backbone that enables scalability, continuous availability, low-latency throughput, and consistent security and quality of service (QoS) across the enterprise.

Myth #5: ESBs compete with the J2EE app server products.
An ESB is highly complementary to a J2EE app server. J2EE app servers can integrate well with other app servers, and with non-J2EE environments, by plugging into the ESB using standard interfaces such as JMS, MDB, JCA, or Web services.

Most adopters of ESB technology are also heavy users of application server technology. These customers use the combination of their application server and ESB as best-of-breed components in their integrated environment - the app server for hosting business logic and serving up Web pages in a portal server environment, and the ESB for integrating the app server with a variety of back-end applications and data sources across their extended enterprise.

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.

Comments (6) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


Most Recent Comments
Charlesy 07/03/13 07:28:00 AM EDT

An old post, but worth a small correction. Comparison with competitor products is always dangerous. You need to be very sure of your territory, and unfortunately, although David's description of BizTalk Server has some validity, it isn't 100% accurate. For example, the transformation services absolutely can be invoked separately to the rest of BTS via lightweight services, and load balanced across different boxes. More recent versions of BTS provide pre-built generic WCF and ASMX transformation web services as a courtesy to developers (reduces the need to build custom transformation services). You can use Windows Server AppFabric tools to create BizTalk maps in non-BizTalk projects - e.g., projects that define lightweight transformation services.

David doesn't clearly spell out what he means by 'cost...of the entire BizTalk Server'. If he means licencing cost, then he hits the mark, somewhat. BTS is certainly licensed in a fashion that encourages distribution and load balancing over a small farm of centralized servers, in contrast to the highly distributed approach advocated by Sonic. You can only invoke BTS transformation services on licensed boxes, so from that perspective, he is correct. However, invoking the transformation services does not require loading additional irrelevant BTS plumbing into memory. There is no heavy-weight performance cost imposed by code bloat, or anything like that!

BizTalk maps are emitted as code components containing an executable XSLT resource. You can distribute maps as freely as you wish and invoke the tranforms via code. Obviously, direct invocation in this case assumes the use of either .NET or Mono, although Java/.NET bridges could be used. If you use BizTalk Server's mapping tools to create maps, you may end up with a dependency on BizTalk-specific scripted components invoked in the XSLT, which ties you to licensed BizTalk Boxes. However, it is pretty easy to avoid this if you wish.

One thing Sonic has which BizTalk really does not is dynamic management of code deployment into the run-time environment. BizTalk Server has an built-in code repository, but this is simply a mechanism for managing and storing compiled artifacts and resources for the purpose of exporting installation packages. You still have to manually install those packages or deploy them via additional script. Frankly, though, this is rarely a significant drawback. The types of solution built using BizTalk Server tend to warrant close attention to managing dynamic deployment across a distributed environment using other frameworks and tools, and BizTalk Server plays well with the relevant frameworks. There is even a community-built deployment framework specifically designed for BizTalk Server.

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:
1. Publish/subscribe to messages
2. Store-and-forward messages
3. Route messages
4. Transform messages

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.
Dave

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.
ESB is just the middleware emporor's new clothes.