+1. I'm sure that horse will go all phoenix on us at some point in the not too distant future. :-)
-Rob P.S. You forgot your "Beware of Ron" tag-line. ;-) --- In [email protected], "rschmelzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From one point of view, an ESB is a pattern (as IBM once professed). > From another point of view, an ESB is a product platform (as seems > to > be the mainstream conception). One's point of view will determine > your > philosophy on one vs. many ESBs and also the necessity of the ESB. > > A trivially simple definition of ESB as a pattern could be a > mechanism > for enabling Service-to-Service communication and composition. Yeah, > that's simple. Too simple? Who knows, but I think it works. > > A trivially simple definition of ESB as a platform could be a stack > of > infrastructure technologies that enable Service exposure, > consumption, > composition, and value-added messaging. Yeah, that's simple too, but > seems to fit. > > Does SOA require ESBs? Not any more so than n-tier architectures > require application servers. Can you do SOA without an ESB? For > sure, > but we've already talked this one blue. You can certainly do highly > scalable web-apps without application servers, too. Can you do SOA > with ESBs? Sure, just as you can do highly scalable web apps with > application servers. Who has the answer? Ron of course. Err, I mean, > you do. Figure out what works for you, but don't be too dogmatic - > realize that there are many ways to skin the SOA cat. > > And in any case, I already discussed the need to do architecture > first, technology selection and implementation last. Don't let the > technology drive the architecture, or depression (manic?) might set > in. > > You're the market - you decide what works. > > Horse: dead and beaten (what's up with all the animal mutilation?) > Ron: gone (but not forgotten!) >
