Anne, isn't this more of a problem of how users use the ESB rather than functionalities provided by ESB? I do agree that some commercial "ESB" are actually EAI tools but many OSS ESB aren't.
H.Ozawa Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > Not as far as I can tell. Which is the primary reasons that I'm not a > fan of > positioning an ESB as the crux of a SOA infrastructure. An ESB is a > useful > tool for encapsulating legacy functionality and exposing it as a service, > but it's primary purpose is integration rather than disintegration. An > ESB > is rarely used to reduce redundancy of data and functionality. > > Anne > > On 7/9/07, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Is there an ESB that isn't about "integration?" >> >> -Rob >> >> --- In >> [email protected]<service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com>, >> >> >> "Suhayl >> Masud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Jeff- >> > >> > You are not alone. I agree with you. >> > >> > A large number of the "ESB"s out there are all about "integration" >> > and about "logically centralized" operations. >> > >> > I think that we should talk more about distribution. About >> autonomy. >> > About peer-to-peer rather than a centralized model. And about >> > flexibility over efficiency. >> > >> > But it is a tough sell :). >> > >> > --cheers >> > Suhayl >> >> >> >
