Regrettably, that is something I cannot do for several legal reasons. I
should have qualified my statements that we performed our tests under a
typical, real-time load. However, I will see if I can post the actual
results. As for performance requirements, that is determined by the
impatience of a customer using our site. :) Our usability studies
indicate that every half-second of latency at the user interface is
very, very expensive.
--
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Hitoshi Ozawa
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Kaufman on Reuse
& SO
Would appreciate if you would share with me how your evaluated
the
products and your
performance requirements.
I know WS* is very slow, but didn't see orders of magnitude
difference when
using FTP or TCP on Mule.
Right, concept goes into the product or it won't be too much
fun. I know
that my Japanese
version is very heavy right now and won't meet your requirement
unless I
strip away all those
extras. :>
Cheers,
H.Ozawa
Bill Barr wrote:
> I think you've just evaluated a poor product.
>
> We evaluated every single commercial and open-source ESB
product
> available on the market, last spring. When we tore out the ESB
stack and
> just evaluated the underlying message/transport backbone, we
began to
> see numbers we were expecting to see. In fact, when several
ESB vendors
> saw our performance requirements, they withdrew themselves
from the rest
> of the selection process.
>
> Let me make it clear that I'm referring to ESB products, not
the ESB
> concept.
>
> --
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:bbarr%40expedia.com>
>
>
