1 / 23

handling complexity (mess?) integration or federation

handling complexity (mess?) integration or federation. Stephen Todd IBM WebSphere MQ e-Science Institute: Edinburgh 14 October 2003. The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of IBM. outline. what are the difficulties facing

aquila-mccarthy
Download Presentation

handling complexity (mess?) integration or federation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. handling complexity (mess?) integration or federation Stephen Todd IBM WebSphere MQ e-Science Institute: Edinburgh 14 October 2003 The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of IBM.

  2. outline • what are the difficulties facing • our customers? • the industry? • how should we address these difficulties • integration? • federation? ?

  3. customer difficulties • lots of departments • every customer address stored 5 times • in 5 different technologies • don't even know if they are the same customer • mergers and acquisitions • complexity - scale - heterogeneity i.e. .....

  4. complexity bomb • clean complexity • quantum theory • non first normal form • dirty complexity • islands of automation • heritage applications and systems • (smart complexity?) • (autonomics?)

  5. the industry has a solution • let us sell you our • magic middleware • database system • application server • messaging system • application solution

  6. even for legacy • we can even wrap your old one • eg relational front end to an IMS database "It's easy to put a relational front end on a pure IMS database ~~~~ at least, it would be if there were any." dirty complexity

  7. we can all grow with your needs 1 2 3 4

  8. and the result is DB2 Oracle Sybase IMS WebSphere app server CICS WebLogic MQ Rendezvous MSMQ different dirty complexity

  9. luckily, we have a solution • let us sell you our systems management system messaging system systems management system database application server

  10. so .... • can't you give us a more integrated solution? • but ...

  11. but ... middleware religion • corporate directive • databases are ... • application servers are ... • messaging system is ... • (no MS software, but 1000 VB programmers) "We can't install your messaging system if it requires DB2 -- even if it is hidden. Corporate directive is Oracle." complexity and contradiction

  12. so, what are our problems when providing middleware to help? messaging system systems management system database application server

  13. our own dirty complexity • many overlapping solutions • integrated islands • heritage products • how many transaction coordinators? • how many databases? • and even more persistent stores... messaging system systems management system database application server

  14. product growth example: MQ • 'simple' point-to-point messaging/queuing • reliable, heterogeneous • resource manager not database because ... • transaction coordinator not external because ... • publish/subscribe • broker • message semantics and dictionary not schema because ... • transformations not SQL because ... • database interaction -with many databases so no integration ... • almost an application server but not because ...

  15. so, potential for integration • common tooling • common systems administration • common data and programming model • etc etc messaging system database application server

  16. database application server integration potential • least affinity ~~ impedance mismatch • subsumption, not integration • even back to CICS, IMS • DB subsumes application server • stored procedures & UDFs make DB an app server • applications subsume database • programming persistence or object DB • removes need for (explicit) DB • but loses much DB modelling and query power?

  17. application servers messaging integration potential • increased 'active' component in messaging • need for wider reach in app server • more heterogeneity • wider geographies • implies distributed, async • linked transaction model

  18. database / messaging integration potential • low level • persistence, resource management, transactions • high level • transformations, data models, streams • data placement and replication relation input stream result stream

  19. integration potential • same messages, same pictures • the data you want • where you want it • when you want it • in the form you want it

  20. but should we integrate, or federate, or ...? • integration • cleaner models • easier administration • federation • heterogeneity • choice • handle dirty complexity Can componentization give us the best of both? How big must the components be? How interdependent?

  21. What does the future hold? Will it change anything fundamentally? • WebServices • same technology, another name • very strong federation credentials • (how widely will it really work) • Grid • ??? ### ??? • Aspect programming • Pickled chocolates

  22. so, to summarize • big, horrid monsters • dirty complexity • face our customers • face the industry • what's the solution? • (We know how to draw the picture) • integration • federation • or ....

  23. brand solution • customers want integration • but it's impossible in the real world • so rebrand federation as integration • and give them what they want • AND what they need

More Related