Kit Kai's Tech Blog

Blog about SharePoint

This Blog

Syndication

Search

Tags

News



  • Want to be notified when new posts are available? Click the icon below for more information on how to subscribe.

    Blog Flux MapStats: Stats and Counter for Kit Kai's Tech Blog Subscribe to Kit Kai's Tech Blog

    Locations of visitors to this page Add to Technorati Favorites

Community

Email Notifications

Archives

Sharepoint / CMS Blogs

MVPs', Leads' & RDs' Blogs

Singapore Usergroups

Overseas Usergroups

About Me

Interesting how Microsoft and other vendor differs when it comes to positioning ESB and BPM products.

I have a slight background in BizTalk, after having the luxury of working with a BizTalk Expert in one of the projects. BizTalk doesn't really differentiate short running processes from long running processes by requiring the architect to first categorise the business processes, and then use either ESB or BPM to host them. Unlike the other camp, (OK, I haven't really went through IBM's training, just Oracle because of the recent acquisition) which requires you to do so, as ESB does not keep the state of the processes. This means that if the architect uses the wrong tool to do the job, system resources will be wasted. But BizTalk automatically releases the resources if the process is long running. I guess there are pros and cos, as gut feel is the ESB created by other vendor would be much more efficient compared to BizTalk. But I also think it adds unnecessary complexity.

What do you guys look at when evaluating ESBs?

Published Monday, September 08, 2008 11:28 PM by kitkai
Filed under:

Comments

# re: Interesting how Microsoft and other vendor differs when it comes to positioning ESB and BPM products.@ Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:21 AM

>> and then use either ESB or BPM to host them

I am not sure I understand what you mean by this statement. They are 2 different concepts meant to solve 2 architectural nuances. How would you use either to host anything ?

>> ESB does not keep the state of the processes

A properly-implemented ESB uses messages as middle-ware. I am not sure what you mean by ESB keeping state ?

>> But BizTalk automatically releases the resources if the process is long running

I am not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say. BizTalk is based on a pub-sub message-oriented-middleware. If you design it to be async, it will be async. Of course, whether its async in terms of "messages" or "threads" are a different thing altogether and this has really nothing to do with BizTalk.

# Interesting how Microsoft and other vendor differs when it comes to positioning ESB and BPM products.@ Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:21 AM

I have a slight background in BizTalk, after having the luxury of working with a BizTalk Expert in one

# re: Interesting how Microsoft and other vendor differs when it comes to positioning ESB and BPM products.@ Monday, September 29, 2008 3:56 PM

Obviously softwaremaker has made very insightful comments :) That provokes more thought than mere answers.

If you like, you may refer to a mind map I have done sometime ago when researching into ESB technologies communities.sgdotnet.org/.../Another-mind-map-on-Integration-Topology-_2800_Message-Broker_2C00_-Message-Bus-etc_2900_.aspx

It has a larger scope but ESB is quite part of it.