| Author |
Message
|
| Michael Dag |
 Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:34 am Post subject: Discussion of WebSphere® Enterprise Service Bus |
 |
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| PGoodhart |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 278
Location: Harrisburg PA
|
To add some fuel...
Anyone else think that IBM created this product to have something to sell to non-tech CEOs convinced they need to "buy" an enterprise service bus to "maintain competative market share" (insert favorite Dogbert marketing term...)?
_________________
Patrick Goodhart
MQ Admin/Web Developer/Consultant
WebSphere Application Server Admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| PGoodhart wrote: |
| Anyone else think that IBM created this product to have something to sell to non-tech CEOs |
isn't that what WebSphere (the name was all about???)
still haven't found a product spec of WebSphere ESB...
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PGoodhart |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 278
Location: Harrisburg PA
|
Yep, and you noticed they used on the new product too. Lawyers and marketing people used to ignore us nerds and now we can't get rid of them...
_________________
Patrick Goodhart
MQ Admin/Web Developer/Consultant
WebSphere Application Server Admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| Michael Dag wrote: |
| PGoodhart wrote: |
| Anyone else think that IBM created this product to have something to sell to non-tech CEOs |
isn't that what WebSphere (the name was all about???)
still haven't found a product spec of WebSphere ESB... |
The problem is that an ESB is not necessarily a product. It is however a set of features that normally has:
messaging
transformation
routing
monitoring
querying
operational management
orchestration (BPEL)
features,
all geared towards satisfying the "plug and play" of services
These features can /may be provided by one or multiple providers and can /may be plugable into the bus's architecture.
The ESB is not even necessarily a physical thing as it can be "virtual".
Now go build the d..... thing !  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
Hm, by the looks of it, it seems that what IBM is saying is - WebsphereMQ + WBI for legacy IT applications, WAS + Websphere ESB for relatively new web-based applications. For example:
| Quote: |
| Businesses will still see a need for WebSphere MQ to connect up the multiple different environments that make up the typical IT infrastructure deployed around an enterprise, but are likely to see a need for WebSphere ESB to add value in environments where it can act on the structured data being exchanged between standards-based applications. |
Is this over-simplification correct?
(I admit it, after reading these publicity-filled documents, I am completely at a loss as to what new functionalities ESB yields; it seems like IBM's just blurting out buzzwords in succession, with no cumulative meaning whatsoever. PGoodhart, no need to add fuel, the EAI worlds is going up in flames anyway  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| hopsala wrote: |
Hm, by the looks of it, it seems that what IBM is saying is - WebsphereMQ + WBI for legacy IT applications, WAS + Websphere ESB for relatively new web-based applications. For example:
| Quote: |
| Businesses will still see a need for WebSphere MQ to connect up the multiple different environments that make up the typical IT infrastructure deployed around an enterprise, but are likely to see a need for WebSphere ESB to add value in environments where it can act on the structured data being exchanged between standards-based applications. |
Is this over-simplification correct?
(I admit it, after reading these publicity-filled documents, I am completely at a loss as to what new functionalities ESB yields; it seems like IBM's just blurting out buzzwords in succession, with no cumulative meaning whatsoever. PGoodhart, no need to add fuel, the EAI worlds is going up in flames anyway ) |
Hopsala: You have to understand that using an ESB means a paradigm change in the integration world. Until the ESB you could only integrate if you had the right adapter and you had to code a particular way dictated by the adapter provider....
The ESB allows you to treat each of your integration systems as a collection of services that are plugged into the bus. The standards we are talking here cover JCA, JTA, XA, XML, WSDL, XSLT, XPATH, XQUERY, JMS, JMX and many more.... The advantage is to no longer need to code to specific implementations of a functionality but to treat it as "plug and play".
The semantics have changed as well. You talk now about services and service provider or resource adapter and no longer about interfaces and implementations...
Enjoy  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| Michael Dag wrote: |
| PGoodhart wrote: |
| Anyone else think that IBM created this product to have something to sell to non-tech CEOs |
isn't that what WebSphere (the name was all about???)
still haven't found a product spec of WebSphere ESB... |
The problem is that an ESB is not necessarily a product. It is however a set of features that normally has:
messaging
transformation
routing
monitoring
querying
operational management
orchestration (BPEL)
features,
all geared towards satisfying the "plug and play" of services
These features can /may be provided by one or multiple providers and can /may be plugable into the bus's architecture.
The ESB is not even necessarily a physical thing as it can be "virtual".
Now go build the d..... thing ! |
well *I* did not say it was a product, IBM did.
so...
where is it?
Or is this the same as the old websphere integration server product, a lot of products in one big box?
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
Don't get me wrong in this discussion. I have been doing EAI before it was called EAI. I worked for IBM and still choose to work with IBM products specifically (don't like the other crap as it is much worse).
I have seen to many marketing hypes, like eServer (all of sudden IBM had no mainframes, midranges and PC servers any more... )
Then WebSpere came along, so powerfull it makes the deadest and dusty-sed product come back alive .... (anyone remember Data Interchange?)
So now IBM announces "product" WebSphere ESB and I want to know / feel / install what it is, that's it. (for now ofcourse... )
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KeeferG |
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 215
Location: Basingstoke, UK
|
I remember having to sit through loads of presentations about this when i was working there. Its been rumbling along for four or five years now and in my opinion still a few years of from its goal. One of those cases where brand and marketing decide the future of the product and start promoting it before the technology is ready. At least the capability is almost there now compared to when I first heard about it.
Even with the new products that are out now or due soon I think we will all have a few more years before WBI MB capabilities will be in the new bus runtime
_________________
Keith Guttridge
-----------------
Using MQ since 1995 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PGoodhart |
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 278
Location: Harrisburg PA
|
From what I've been able to find in the features and benefits section of the IBM website this is really a misnamed product. It should be something like WebSphere Services. It seems to be focused on JMS'ing C, C++ and providing a whole bunch of ready built functionallity for the Java world focused on Web Services. If this is the case, I think they have a really useful product but one that is likely to be misunderstood due to the name.
_________________
Patrick Goodhart
MQ Admin/Web Developer/Consultant
WebSphere Application Server Admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
| PGoodhart wrote: |
| From what I've been able to find in the features and benefits section of the IBM website this is really a misnamed product. |
That has become an IBM habit in recent years.
We've come a long way from names such as WMQ - which denotes specific functionality (queues and messages, so simple) - to ESB and WBI, which are entirely conceptual, much to the confusion of all; Next they'll call DB2 "Websphere Enterprise Information Architecture".
I truely wonder, kidding aside, how many deals IBM lose over the whole naming mess in recent years; I mean, i've been in the market for a while now, i've seen the way buisness decisions and purchases are made, and about 50% of the time it boils down to some low-level manager searching the web with only a general idea of what he's looking for. If he stumbles on to the IBM website, ten minutes of struggling with the awful website and arcane products will convince him to move on to greener pastures.
Amusingly enough, most companies don't even bother with names and simply make something up - Biztalk, Tuxedo - and for some reason, people know exactly what these products do! (note that Tivoli is also never confused with other products).
IMHO, in the effort to modernize their products and concepts, IBM has taken a wrong turn by creating hybrid old-world/new-world names and concepts, and had mainly achieved to confuse everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JLRowe |
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 664
Location: South East London
|
| KeeferG wrote: |
I remember having to sit through loads of presentations about this when i was working there. Its been rumbling along for four or five years now and in my opinion still a few years of from its goal. One of those cases where brand and marketing decide the future of the product and start promoting it before the technology is ready. At least the capability is almost there now compared to when I first heard about it.
Even with the new products that are out now or due soon I think we will all have a few more years before WBI MB capabilities will be in the new bus runtime |
MB 6 works with the new messaging capability in WAS 6 and Websphere ESB.
Until the product is released, Websphere ESB just looks like a subset version of WAS with just the messaging, web services and SOA stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KeeferG |
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 215
Location: Basingstoke, UK
|
All of the components do work together I agree. I wonder how long after leaving IBM do I have to remain tight lipped about product direction.
The marketing drive and technology drive provoke some interesting questions about where all this stuff is going.
All of the current components will continue to work together. How they get to the final goal is the fun part. Of course the goal changes every year and talking to my friends about where we are shows things have moved on since i was last involved.
_________________
Keith Guttridge
-----------------
Using MQ since 1995 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gorilla |
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 16
|
I just heard that WESB has been announced. I think this is a very interesting product for "MQ people", as the WAS platform now has its own messaging (which is compatible with MQ) and its own WMB-like product. Personally, I'm trying to get established in this new WAS-based world as a complement to WMQ and WMB. The principles are the same, and the products aren't so different, so it's not so hard.
Here's a brief description of WESB from something I posted to a different topic (I've seen it and used it a little):
There is a new product based on the same technology as WebSphere Process Server called "WebSphere Enterprise Service Bus". It's not officially announced, but there is plenty of material on it , such as here:
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/integration/wsesb/
An easy way to distinguish the roles of WPS/WESB: WESB occupies the same functional space as the MQ Message Broker, WPS the same space as MQWF. WESB is included as a component in WPS, and also availiable separately - similar to the Event Broker / Message Broker relationship in WMB.
WESB speaks XML (and IBM Adapter Business Objects) for data representation; and WMQ, JMS, the IBM Adapter interface, and Web Services for comms. Mapping via a builtin feature or XSLT, XPath supported for tree navigation. The development tooling is part of WID (as shown in the BPMS report). WESB includes most of the WISC capabilities which WMB V5 doesn't have such as Business Objects, xref tables, etc (WMB V6 has filled in a lot of the gaps though).
WPS and WESB are based on WAS V6, which pretty much explains why there is such a lot of product churn: first a WAS which is good enough to build servers on, then a bunch of products which take advantage of that.
The differences between WESB and WMB are such that it seems entirely possible that one customer would want both. WESB will obviously be very convenient for a WAS/WPS user. OTOH WMB still has the speed advantage (*very* important for anyone building a real SOA infrastructure) and support for legacy (like all those non-XML WMQ messages . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
