SOA-Based Enterprise Integration. A Step-by-Step Guide to Services-based Application Integration. by Waseem Roshen. ebook. This book focuses on one of the key technical values of SOA and does an excellent job of describing SOA-based application integration by. SOA-Based. Enterprise Integration: A Step-by-Step Guide to Services-Based Application Integration. Waseem Roshen. New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Genre:||Academic & Education|
|ePub File Size:||20.67 MB|
|PDF File Size:||13.77 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
CITATION. Roshen, Waseem. SOA-Based Enterprise Integration: A Step-by-Step Guide to Services-based Application. US: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media, Editorial Reviews. From the Back Cover. Publisher's Note: Products downloadd from Third Party eBook features: Highlight, take notes, and search in the book. SOA-Based Enterprise Integration: A Step-by-Step Guide to Services-based Application [Waseem Roshen] on ronaldweinland.info *FREE* shipping on qualifying.
What is an SOA Platform? First, what is an SOA-based platform? Second, how can downloading proprietary software create a unified platform? Third, does this really put BEA far out in front of the competition? This blog will look at the first question, what is an SOA platform? I'll deal with the other issues in the next few blogs.
In a point-to-point integration model, a unique connector component is implemented for each pair of applications or systems that must communicate.
When used with small infrastructures, where only two or three systems must be integrated, this model can work quite well, providing a lightweight integration solution tailor-made to the needs of the infrastructure. However, as additional components are added to an infrastructure, the number of point-to-point connections required to create a comprehensive integration architecture begins to increase exponentially.
A three-component infrastructure requires only three point-to-point connections to be considered fully integrated.
By comparison, the addition of just two more components increases this number to 10 connectors. This is already approaching an unmanageable level of complexity, and once an infrastructure includes 8 or 9 component systems, and the number of connections jumps into the 30s, point-to-point integration is no longer a viable option.
Remember that each of these connectors must be separately developed and maintained across system version changes, scalability changes, and more or, in some cases, even downloadd at high cost from a vendor , and the unsuitability of point-to-point integration for complex enterprise scenarios becomes painfully clear. The EAI Approach To Integration To avoid the complexity and fallibility of integrating complex infrastructures using a point to point approach, EAI solutions use various models of middleware to centralize and standardize integration practices across an entire infrastructure.
Rather than each application requiring a separate connector to connect to every other connector, components in an EAI-based infrastructure use standardized methods to connect to a common system that is responsible for providing integration, message brokering, and reliability functionalities to the entire network.
In other words, EAI solves the problem of integrating modular systems by treating integration as a task for a system, like any other task, rather than a snarled mess of brittle connections. EAI systems bundle together adapters for connectivity, data transformation engines to convert data to an appropriate format for use by the consumer, modular integration engines to handle many different complex routing scenarios simultaneously, and other components to present a unified integration solution.
EAI loosens the tightly coupled connections of point-to-point integration. An application can send a message without any knowledge of the consumer's location, data requirements, or use for the message - all of this information can be handled by the EAI implementation.
This allows for a more flexible architecture, where new parts can be added and removed as needed, simply by changing the configuration of the EAI provider, and simplified modular development, where a single service can be re-used by multiple applications.
Many modern EAI approaches also take advantage of the opportunity presented by adding a central integration mechanism to further consolidate messaging tasks.
Traditional EAI The first EAI solutions on the market took the idea of unifying integration literally, and incorporated all the functionality required for integration into central hubs, called brokers.
In this section, we'll look at the advantages and disadvantages of this model, and learn why it is being abandoned in favor of ESB architecture. The Broker Model In a broker approach to EAI, a central integration engine, called the broker, resides in the middle of the network, and provides all message transformation, routing, and any other inter-application functionality.
All communication between applications must flow through the hub, allowing the hub to maintain data concurrency for the entire network.
Typically, implementations of the broker model also provide monitoring and auditing tools that allow users to access information about the flow of messages through their systems, as well as tools to speed up the complicated task of configuring mapping and routing between large numbers of systems and applications. Advantages Like all EAI approaches to integration, the broker model allows loose coupling between applications.
This means that applications are able to communicate asynchronously, sending messages and continuing work without waiting for a response from the recipient, knowing exactly how the message will get to its endpoint, or in some cases, even knowing the endpoint of the message. A broker approach also allows all integration configuration to be accomplished within a central repository, which means less repetitive configuration.
Disadvantages Like any other architecture model that uses a central engine, is that the broker can become a single point of failure for the network. Since the broker is responsible for all concurrency between application's data sets and states, all messages between applicants must pass through it.
Under heavy load, the broker can become a bottleneck for messages. A single central destination for all messages also makes it difficult to use the broker model successfully across large geographical distances.
Lastly, implementations of the broker model are often heavyweight, proprietary products, aimed at supporting a specific vendor's subset of technology. This can present problems if your integration scenario involves products from several vendors, internally developed systems, or legacy products that are no longer supported by the vendor. The lack of clear standards for EAI architecture and the fact that most early solutions were proprietary meant that early EAI products were expensive, heavyweight, and sometimes did not work as intended unless a system was fairly homogenous.
The effects of these problems were amplified by the fact that the broker model made the EAI system a single point of failure for the network.
A malfunctioning component meant total failure for the entire network. In , one study estimated that as many as 70 percent of integration projects ultimately failed due to the flaws in early broker solutions. While it still used a central routing component to pass messages from system to system, the bus architecture sought to lessen the burden of functionality placed on a single component by distributing some of the integration tasks to other parts of the network.
These components could then be grouped in various configurations via configuration files to handle any integration scenario in the most efficient way possible, and could be hosted anywhere within the infrastructure, or duplicated for scalability across large geographic regions.
Third, does this really put BEA far out in front of the competition? This blog will look at the first question, what is an SOA platform? I'll deal with the other issues in the next few blogs. So what is an SOA-based platform?
SOA is a set of architecture principles that includes creating loosely coupled software components that can be put together to create a business solution, and reused in creating new business solutions. The benefits of loose coupling are enabled by event-driven design. Furthermore, if we learned anything at all from the past two decades of object oriented programming, reuse requires management and governance. So how does this all translate into an SOA-based platform? Actually, although hype and press usually win out in these situations, it would probably be more accurate to call it an application for building composite applications.
Please take note that none of these software capabilities will produce event-driven loosely coupled services. That's the architecture part. OK, that's because SOA is a hot buzz word.