Untitled Document
Editor's Note: Interested in optimizing your SOA, then you cannot miss ebizQ's upcoming virtual conference on SOA Governance, which you can sign up for right here.
There has been a bit of a blogging war going on over the last few weeks, starting
with a
post I made that, in essence, pushes back on the use of multiple ESBs (Enterprise
Service Buses) in a particular enterprise. It was not the use of ESBs that bothered
me. It was that perhaps there was not a lot of architectural thinking going
on, and people are dragging ESBs into their enterprises for the wrong reasons.
While I've hit this topic about 50 times in the last four years, for some reason
that post hit a nerve. Half of those responding said I was "spot on."
The other half thought I was muckraking. The truth is, I've called ESBs into
question since they hit the marketplace, and will continue to do so. My cautionary
tales do not focus on the value of ESBs, but the fact that, in many instances,
they are overhyped and overused, and, generally speaking, not a lot of architectural
forethought has preceded the selection of an ESB, or worse, ESBs.
Backing up for a bit, ESBs really became a way to label JMS-based middleware,
which was service enabled as "ESBs." Although Progress Software and
the Gartner Group had a bit of back and forth on who invented the term "ESB,"
at this point it really does not matter. What does matter is that with the explosion
of interest in SOA, almost all of those who had anything that resembled an integration
server, message-oriented middleware, or a message broker, re-labeled their product
as an "ESB." Thus, you had dozens of ESBs out there, all different,
thus all supporting the notion of SOA differently.
Moreover, the use of ESBs were promoted as "SOA in a box"-type technology.
While architects should have been going through typical business requirements
analysis, they instead ran out and purchased ESBs in hopes that the answer would
somehow come out of the box. Unfortunately, in many cases, they actually made
things more complex, and thus worse. That was the essence of my argument.
1