Hi Gervas, I'm sorry if it seemed like a sales pitch. It wasn't my intention. I happen to think our technology is a very good fit for some SOA architectures and requirements.
>From the recent conversations about what's appropriate for the discussion group I thought it was ok to post messages that were enthusiastic about a particular technology. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. To be clear, the question at the end was not about the idea that our technology could be a good fit in some SOA architectures, although since it was directly after the last paragraph I could see why someone might think it was related only to that. My intention was rather to confirm the thrust of the entire message, which was (at least this is what I meant it to be) that the design should be done independently of the vendor or technology choice. Eric --- "Gervas Douglas (gmail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Putting my moderator's hat on: > > Hmmm. That wasn't so much billboarding as a gentle > but deadly sales pitch. > I like the assumptive (how could he possibly say > anything but "yes") close > at the end. Ever thought of moving into sales, > Eric??? > > Have fun! > > Gervas > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Newcomer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:35 PM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: > SOA Infrastructure > > > > Hi Awel, > > > > I would agree 100% with what you are saying, and I > > often tell our customers (and anyone else who > might be > > attending one of my talks, such as the one next > week > > at the InfoWorld forum in San Fran) that it is > vitally > > important to start with the design and the > > architecture and make the technology choice later. > > > > Especially if you are doing SOA it's important to > do > > the design first and then see what technology maps > > best. We do not suggest anything different. > > > > We are also very happy to identify the areas where > we > > can contribute to any such architecture, such as > > service enabling legacy applications, or > abstracting > > the messaging layer, if those are important > aspects of > > the architecture (as they are for some of our > > customers). If we don't fit, that's ok too. We > are > > not trying to force ourselves into places that > don't > > make sense. > > > > But we do believe strongly that our technology is > > good, proven in large scale demanding applications > and > > it can be helpful. Not in every case of course > but in > > many. > > > > So I think we are in agreement? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Eric > > > > --- Awel Dico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Eric; > > > > > > It is a good observation as to how the vendors > are > > > approaching the > > > ESB product implementation. That diversity may > be > > > positive for the > > > users - choose what best fit to their situation. > The > > > reality from > > > your customers (users) perspective is different > > > though. Many > > > enterprises do not just go and buy those "ESB > > > products". They look > > > at the ESB capabilities as a pattern first - at > > > least from the point > > > of view of the enterprise I work for. With clear > > > understanding of > > > the capabilities, they map those capabilities > with > > > the SOA > > > infrastructure requirement. This is important > > > because you may not > > > need ESB at all (XML appliances may do the job); > or > > > it is something > > > that you need right away, or it may be something > for > > > the future. The > > > enterprise architecture has to come up with the > SOA > > > technology > > > infrastructure reference architecture > accordingly. > > > Based on the > > > understanding of the capabilities required and > > > enterprise > > > architectural guidelines, they start to evaluate > ESB > > > products - may > > > take them for a test drive (Proof-of-concept > type). > > > The point I am > > > trying to make here is that it is not an issue > or > > > controversial from > > > the users perspective. It may be an issue from > > > vendor's perspective. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Dico > > > > > > > The result on the one hand is JMS centric > while on > > > the > > > > other ours is a multi-communications protocol, > > > multi > > > > data format, brokerless, hubless distributed > > > > architecture much better suited for SOA > > > > infrastructure. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately it seems like most vendors are > > > adopting > > > > the JMS centric approach, and that is what > leads > > > to > > > > the controversy. > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > [email protected], > > > Eric > > > Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > A lot of posts to this group, and recent blogs > by > > > Joe > > > > McKendrick among others, have brought up the > > > debate > > > > again about the Enterprise Service Bus. > > > > > > > > For the most recent, see: > > > > > > > > > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/index.php?p=560 > > > > > > > > Among the questions debated here is the > lifetime > > > of > > > > the ESB product category. Some suggest that > it's > > > a > > > > temporary product category, soon to be > subsumed by > > > > something else. > > > > > > > > I'm not so sure. It takes a long time for a > new > > > > product category to get established. Just ask > our > > > > friends at Sonic ;-). > > > > > > > > And with IBM, BEA, Oracle, Tibco, and others > > > recently > > > > announcing they would ship an ESB the product > > > category > > > > has definitely been validated and, I believe, > > > > established. > > > > > > > > But what is an ESB? This question does indeed > > > > continue to trouble the industry, since it > still > > > seems > > > > as if every vendor has a different definition. > > > > > > > > Several months ago I was invited to help > deliver a > > > 3 > > > > -hour tutorial on SOA and ESBs together with > David > > > > Chappell of Sonic. He ended up injuring > himself > > > in a > > > > water skiing accident (which he blogged about) > > > shortly > > > > before the tutorial date, so while the two of > us > > > > collaborated on the development of the > > > presentation a > > > > colleague of Dave's ended up physically > joining me > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
