You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@servicemix.apache.org by Robert Thullner <rt...@gmx.at> on 2007/11/27 09:32:53 UTC

Parts of an EAI solution

Hello

I am writing my master thesis about EAI solutions and open sources
frameworks for it. A part of the thesis shall be to categorize the parts
what make up an EAI solution. So what I try to find now, are categories
which are part of an EAI solution (see the categories I have until now
below). What I will try to do then is to use open source products
(frameworks) in the categories and find scenarios which will be implemented.

I will then try to make assumptions in which scenarios perhaps a MOM is
enough for a solution or under which cases I will need a lot more products,
where I need a combination of products, which combinations are useful, which
do not work together, etc. 

My categories (parts) right now are:

- Message Oriented Middleware, like ActiveMQ, JBossMQ
- ESB, like ServiceMix, Mule
- Pattern implementations, like Camel
- Rule engines, like Drools
- BPEL engines

My question to you is, what do you think about my categories and which
categories do you think are missing, what would you add to my list? My
intention for this post is to end up in a discussion, so please participate.

Thanks

Robert


Re: Parts of an EAI solution

Posted by Andrea Zoppello <zo...@tiscali.it>.
Hi,

Another important thing to consider in EAI is the *Monitoring/Management 
( from System monitoring to BAM ) *

Andrea Zoppello



Robert Thullner ha scritto:
> Hello
>
> I am writing my master thesis about EAI solutions and open sources
> frameworks for it. A part of the thesis shall be to categorize the parts
> what make up an EAI solution. So what I try to find now, are categories
> which are part of an EAI solution (see the categories I have until now
> below). What I will try to do then is to use open source products
> (frameworks) in the categories and find scenarios which will be implemented.
>
> I will then try to make assumptions in which scenarios perhaps a MOM is
> enough for a solution or under which cases I will need a lot more products,
> where I need a combination of products, which combinations are useful, which
> do not work together, etc. 
>
> My categories (parts) right now are:
>
> - Message Oriented Middleware, like ActiveMQ, JBossMQ
> - ESB, like ServiceMix, Mule
> - Pattern implementations, like Camel
> - Rule engines, like Drools
> - BPEL engines
>
> My question to you is, what do you think about my categories and which
> categories do you think are missing, what would you add to my list? My
> intention for this post is to end up in a discussion, so please participate.
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert
>
>
>   


Re: Parts of an EAI solution

Posted by Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>.
Add one to your categories, service framework such as apache cxf

Regards
Freeman

Robert Thullner wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am writing my master thesis about EAI solutions and open sources
> frameworks for it. A part of the thesis shall be to categorize the parts
> what make up an EAI solution. So what I try to find now, are categories
> which are part of an EAI solution (see the categories I have until now
> below). What I will try to do then is to use open source products
> (frameworks) in the categories and find scenarios which will be implemented.
>
> I will then try to make assumptions in which scenarios perhaps a MOM is
> enough for a solution or under which cases I will need a lot more products,
> where I need a combination of products, which combinations are useful, which
> do not work together, etc. 
>
> My categories (parts) right now are:
>
> - Message Oriented Middleware, like ActiveMQ, JBossMQ
> - ESB, like ServiceMix, Mule
> - Pattern implementations, like Camel
> - Rule engines, like Drools
> - BPEL engines
>
> My question to you is, what do you think about my categories and which
> categories do you think are missing, what would you add to my list? My
> intention for this post is to end up in a discussion, so please participate.
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert
>
>
>