> > 2. I think the term "XML gateways" is pretty rarely > used compared to ESB, as are the distinctions you make > between an ESB and an XML gateway. > You're correct on this, and it's unfortunate. Part of the problem is technology silos. Network and security engineers are much more comfortable with the concept of an appliance. Developers and application server engineers are much more comfortable with the concept of a software based system, like an ESB. Break down the silos and get these teams working together, as should research firms that have separate analysts handling network infrastructure versus application infrastructure. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I observe is that you > seem to believe that some sort of intermediary is > likely one of the first pieces of infrastructure one > should invest in. The major difference, is that you > prefer intermediaries that are more "passive", > agent-like, whereas ESB vendors are promoting the more > "active" variety of intermediary. I can't speak for Anne, but I don't think this is what she meant. A conceptual intermediary can be gateway-based, agent-based, or both. In all three of the product categories (SOA management, ESB, and XML gateway), they all take an active approach. Some may require agents, some may not, some may offer both.
-tb ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/NhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
