Eric, No apology called for. If I had really objected (as some moderators would have), I would not have approved your message.
Whilst I appreciate the nobility of your intentions, I have to say it was a textbook example of a good pitch. Contrary to popular myth, one of the secrets of effective selling is to actually believe in what you are selling (and I do not mean in the meretricious manner of temporary assumption of belief as adopted by certain political orators [TB, perhaps??]). Perhaps you should use your obviously natural talent in a deliberately targeted fashion! Gervas --- In [email protected], Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 <e_newcomer@> 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=V0 > > > > > > > > > > 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/
