Deliver superior customer experiences with an AI-driven platform for creating and deploying cognitive chatbots
Deliver Awesome UI with the most complete toolboxes for .NET, Web and Mobile development
Automate UI, load and performance testing for web, desktop and mobile
A complete cloud platform for an app or your entire digital business
Detect and predict anomalies by automating machine learning to achieve higher asset uptime and maximized yield
Automate decision processes with a no-code business rules engine
Optimize data integration with high-performance connectivity
Connect to any cloud or on-premises data source using a standard interface
Build engaging multi-channel web and digital experiences with intuitive web content management
Personalize and optimize the customer experience across digital touchpoints
Build, protect and deploy apps across any platform and mobile device
Rapidly develop, manage and deploy business apps, delivered as SaaS in the cloud
In my opinion the rage against ESBs is directed more at the term "Enterprise Service Bus" than at the need for integration within an enterprise SOA. Few bloggers would publicly discredit integration infrastructure in the same way that they rebuke the term ESB. Corporate IT portfolios are ripe with IT systems needing to be integrated and line-of-business executives who remain disgruntled with the lack of agility shown by IT in response to their demand for business change. So, if you replace the label "ESB" with the word "integration", I expect that the vitriol would turn to sweet loving respect if not desire.
Integration infrastructure buyers ("ESB" buyers) are learning that most ESBs that come packaged with a platform are really unadorned web service brokers – allowing simple transformations of SOAP messages but little more. If they've done their homework, these same buyers have learned that many vendors re-label security appliances, EAI suites and even application servers as ESBs. So there is little surprise that the term "ESB" itself has become the object of such animosity.
Furthermore, most new SOA infrastructure applications don't need an ESB. ESBs are designed to provide integration between applications and are often overkill when put between services within a single development team. And when real integration projects do arise the complex nature of legacy IT infrastructure makes exceeds the capabilities of these one-size-fits-all service brokers.
Many of the clients with whom I've spoken about integration recognize the vitality of this solution and are on record with their satisfaction:
These supporting quotes suggest that some customers have come to draw their own conclusions about what an "ESB" is and as such, support the term - provided that the solution meets their needs (and perhaps is implemented in the right way). It's frustrating that the market has put them in a position where they have to go to such lengths – it makes their job of rationalizing the options available to them that much more difficult. Perhaps in the end, we should admit that the battle of defining ESB properly is a lost cause; rather vendors like Progress focus on SOA integration in general and the value of a robust solution to this age old IT challenge.
View all posts from Jon Bachman on the Progress blog. Connect with us about all things application development and deployment, data integration and digital business.
Copyright © 2018 Progress Software Corporation and/or its subsidiaries or affiliates.
All Rights Reserved.
Progress, Telerik, and certain product names used herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Progress Software Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates in the U.S. and/or other countries. See Trademarks for appropriate markings.