Madness, I say!

I have to tell you I was a bit depressed by some of the comments that were posted around my post concerning the overuse of ESBs, or really the lack of architectural planning and strategic thinking. Here are a few of the comments posted:

“thought this column was about “Real World SOA” ?

We can talk all day about how things “should be” but the reality is always going to be different.

Even if there was true [centralized] control from a single source over the life of an enterprise’s SOA effort, mergers and acquisitions can totally screw any plans you had for a single [technology] stack. You can’t just stamp your foot and say “go replace your stack before I talk to you” – IT’s job is to deliver that integration to the new business in a quick and cost-effective manner.. [However] ugly it might be in the short term.”

Or

“However, I take issue with the implication that multiple ESBs is inherently flawed.”

John Michelsen, weighed in as well, actually provided more color around the concept of the article. However, I was referring to the general notion of poor architecture rather than specific instances where it’s justified. I understand that M&A and other business activities may indeed drive the need to link ESBs, but I view that as a tactical effort that, generally speaking, is not the proper long term strategy. Just so we are clear.

I suspect those pushing back have multiple ESBs in their enterprise, and would rather not have to explain their decisions around my post. Were they working for me, I would have a lot of very tough questions for them, and I suspect the responses would be:

“That’s Bill’s department; those guys do what they want.”

Or, the very popular:

“They had an end-of-the-year special on that ESB, and we figured we would need one.”

Or, the very scary:

“But, Dave, ESBs provide an out-of-the-box SOA. Don’t they?”

I’ve heard each of the above with my own ears over the years. And what I’m asserting is that there has to be some architecture forethought behind dragging any technology into the enterprise, and I suspect that’s not occurring.

All that being said, I’m still sticking to my position that lack of centralized control and architecture, in many instances, is the cause of the problem. Moreover, what is missing, more often than not, is a core plan and/or architecture. Or, perhaps better put, what is missing is leadership.

However, perhaps we’re not entirely doomed. I did see some sensible responses, such as Loraine Lawson’s most recent post, where she states:

“Identify the problem, make a plan and then find technology that makes that plan work? Linthicum, that’s just crazy talk. Madness, I say!

Sorry if I seem flippant. But his post cracked me up. After all, this is exactly the type of situation Linthicum’s been warning about for a long, long time.

“I completely see his point, but I suspect rip-and-replace may be just too radical for most organizations – too difficult to admit mistakes were made, too hard to undo all the work you’ve put into an architecture, too expensive to start over.”

So, in the spirit of having an open mind, send me your reasons for leveraging multiple ESBs, and why that’s a good approach for your enterprise architecture. Also, while you’re at it, make sure to send me the reasons you’re using an ESB to begin with: your requirements and the reasoning behind the solution. I won’t post them unless you say it’s okay.

I suspect I won’t hear from anybody, and that is the real world. We need to get better at this stuff guys!