Talk:Enterprise service bus

message: I read the article, waiting for the substance.  I'm still hungry, and I needed to know this stuff yesterday.  Oh yeah, that diagram on the right contains absolutely no information.  Someone should remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.250.101 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... what is it, again? 

message: I would suggest deleting the list of vendors in this article.  It has become an incredibly spammy link repository, and Wikipedia is not a link repository.  In general, inserting  a list of "vendors", "dealers", "providers", etc. into an article seems to eventually turn it into a haven for spam. —Veyklevar 05:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has gotten even spammier since I wrote that.  I am going ahead and removing it. —Veyklevar 08:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ESB-related vendors

message: (broken link)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.30.194 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: To my mind the biggest failing of this article is its failure to give any background on where the concept and terminology came from. Normally there's some seminal paper, some evangelical vendor, some crusading consultant behind such things. I expect to get *some* hint of this in the first or second paragraph of the article... --Snori 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did this come from?

message: Is there any integration-related functionality not supported by ESB?  Appears that the definition of ESB should be "an integration approach that can do anything".  The article would be more useful if it differentiated ESB from other EAI models. 167.127.24.25 22:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salient Characteristics 

message: Isn't it advisable to put the Redbooks that are mentioned in the links in the books section?
Mylenereiners 07:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 

message: removed section per Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists,  directories or Advocacy of commercial products and/or websites. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias, this applies not only to article text, but to companies, company lists, products, external links, or any other material as well.--Hu12 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Software

message: I was hoping it would explain what ESB is exactly in a way comprehensible but it reads like an ESB ad written by any number of ESB vendors.  I'd help rewrite it but I'd have to find some actual information with meaningful verbiage.  Can someone explain what one ACTUALLY is. Reboot 12:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article isn't very good

message: Seriously, high importance? It's just a marketing phrase coined by some middleware vendors. Mnd999 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: High Importance?

message: I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia, and this is the first substantial content I've added to any article. However, I decided to be bold and just add my contribution to article itself. A major complaint that I've encountered on this talk page is the lack of any context. I have tried to rectify that by adding a "What is ESB" section that explains the idea to someone new to the concept. I'm afraid that by doing so that I have created a bit of redundancy in the article, but I did not feel confident enough to delete anything.
Basically, I would like this article to be an accessible introduction rather than a confusing jumble of buzzwords and disconnected sentences. There are a couple of paragraphs in the introduction that I don't think make much sense. (I don't know how to quote so I'm just going to use "pre" tags. If there's a more acceptable way please edit this.)
An ESB generally provides an abstraction layer on top of an implementation of an enterprise messaging system, 
which allows integration architects to exploit the value of messaging without writing code. Contrary to the more 
classical enterprise application integration (EAI) approach of a monolithic stack in a hub and spoke architecture, 
the foundation of an enterprise service bus is built of base functions broken up into their constituent parts, with 
distributed deployment where needed, working in harmony as necessary. 
This paragraph is difficult to understand, and provides no context at all. While the information it is trying to convey is valuable, it probably should not be the second paragraph of the article.
This conflicts with a statement elsewhere in the article that ESB can be either centralized or distributed. Robertpollai 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Added

message: it says an ESB is not necessarily SOA, then the next sentence says it is. I do not know how to fix this at this time.
For those who are wondering when this comes up, I am encountering the term in a discussing of RTMP vs AMF in the context of LiveCycle, BlazeDS and Flex, though there are probably other venues where it arises. 
I'd say more, but I came here to find out what the term means myself :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it says an ESB is not necessarily SOA, then the next sentence says it is  It depends which one your customer is prepared to pay more for. Rogerborg (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph 3 needs help badly.  

message: I suggest the article mentions an ESB can be a hardware product too (currently it says it is either an architectural style or a software product.
204.104.55.241 (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESB as hardware product 

message: another problem: in the list of benefits and disadvantages, there is a bit of a paradox:  The ESB has no centralised broker, but it becomes a single point of failure. Also prior to this in the article itself, there is disagreement about whether a centralised or distributed architecture must be used.
The concept of a BUS comes from hardware architecture, where a long piece of copper wire connected several components, allowing these to communicate in a fully connected graph. This in itself is not centralised - it's more like smart endpoints - however, buses started having controllers, intelligence, etc. and these in turn are centralised and introduce the SPOF. And that is not at all clear in this article.  Maybe I'll get a chance to clean it up a bit once I have completed my research.  Ooskapenaar (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributed SPOF? 

message: As per WP:NOT I removed the list.  It was getting out of hand, with no indication of notability of any of the products.  --HighKing (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed list of Vendors 

message: This article is closer to 100% buzzword compliant than anything else I think I've ever read on Wikipedia.  :-)  --Baylink (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader Opinion 

message: There is a link to a Forrester report that costs $499 in the reference section.  I think that should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcedelica (talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References behind paywalls 

message: How is ESB a special kind of client-server?
It's the other way round. Rp (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A specialty variant of client-server? 

message: Key benefit is loose coupling of the system, while key disadvantage is tightly coupling the system.   Ummm .... okay.  75.82.248.221 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts itself 

message: We create new open-source ESB OpenHub. It is ESB based on Apache Camel and adds many usefull functions. It is possible to download from GitHub It is possible add link into section Products and Open-source software?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman.havlicek (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New open-source ESB