Stefan, I think it's just a matter of how you use the ESB. Using an ESB does not mandate using multiple protocols. IMHO neverthess, as Anne pointed out, we do not have the luxury of homogeneous systems most of the times and having a tool to propose a migration path from a heterogeneous system to a homogeneous system is advantageous.
H.Ozawa Stefan Tilkov wrote: > On Aug 24, 2006, at 4:04 AM, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > > Stefan Tilkov wrote: > > > (1) select an ESB that supports all of these > > > (2) for each technology, select some product that service-enables it > > > > What would you view as being "service-enabled"? > > > > Well -- whatever you want to. Seriously, which particular sets of > protocols and standards you standardize does not really matter for > this particular discussion IMO. I'm a fan of wire standards as > opposed to API standards, but even that is not that relevant in this > context. (And the usual way to "service-enable" something is, in my > experience, to create a wrapper application, not use an off-the-shelf > product.) > > The difference is whether you select a product that supports all of > the different standard and proprietary protocols you care about, or > force every participant to conform to the one (or limited number of) > standard(s) you rely on. I consider the first (and therefore the ESB > concept) to be a variant of EAI, and the second one to be 'real' SOA. > > I believe the huge interest in ESBs is due to the mistaken belief > that if you buy an ESB, you're buying an SOA. An illusion which, for > some reason, the ESB vendors are not keen on destroying :-) > > Stefan > -- > Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/ > <http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/> > > 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/
