Hi Eric、 I think infrastructure possible with Artix ESB isn't too much different from those of Mule except Mule doesn't use WSDL for all interfaces.
I'm adding features to Mule to make it more of a SOA infrastructure, but I haven't uploaded them to the Mule site yet because of the new licensing after they became MuleSource. I also have to admit that the SOA infrastructure support does take some performance tolls, but if it's just simple messaging, they aren't needed. Info on other additions added: http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/moving_to_soa_i.html Cheers, H.Ozawa Eric Newcomer wrote: > As we have often said, IONA's Artix ESB is unlike other ESBs, enough so that > Anne Thomas Manes doesn't even like to call it one. > > A few years ago one of our product managers was sceptical about the idea that > Web services would resolve all customer requirements. > > So we built into our configurable microkernel the ability to switch out > communication protocols and data formats. > > I suppose some might disagree with our decision to use WSDL as the neutral > interface format - this was in fact a long discussion - but when customers > complain about the performance of SOAP/HTTP we suggest a configuration change > to SOAP/IIOP, SOAP/JMS, fixed format/IIOP, fixed format/JMS, etc. The > interface does not change, and in fact if you need two communication > protocols and data formats for the same service we can do that too. > > In the future we expect to support programming models the same way - i.e. > these are configurable too. > > So I would just respectfully suggest that the characterizations of ESB here > may not apply to all products that call themselsves an ESB, only those with a > fixed communications protocol and data format. > > Eric > >
