Well stated! I'll shut up. :)
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Anil John
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [service-orientated-architecture] ESB Standard
Definition
Expired equine + long stick + vigorous activity :-)
It may be worthwhile to look at the archives of this list
regarding this
particular subject.
Regards,
- Anil
:-
:- Anil John
:- http://www.aniltj.com/blog/ <http://www.aniltj.com/blog/>
:-
________________________________
From: [email protected]
<mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
Of
Bill Barr
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:36 PM
To: [email protected]
<mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [service-orientated-architecture] ESB Standard
Definition
The problem I have with all of this is that it just seems like
we're putting the cart before the horse.
But of course! That's what IT does: "Here's a really cool
solution. Let's go find a problem to solve with it!" :)
The definition of what an ESB does will be ever-changing, just
as the definition of what an application server does has been
ever-changing. It's a fruitless exercise to try to nail it down.
I disagree. There are lots of smart people reading, why not
collaborate, come up with a definition that we can agree upon
based on
our needs and then tell the vendors what an ESB is? We can
change the
definition as we need it to change.
--
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:bbarr%40expedia.com>
