ppt
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
handling complexity (mess?)integration or federation
Stephen ToddIBM WebSphere MQ
e-Science Institute: Edinburgh14 October 2003
The opinions expressed here are those of the authorand do not necessarily represent those of IBM.
![Page 2: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
outline
what are the difficulties facing• our customers?• the industry?
how should we address these difficulties• integration?• federation?
?
![Page 3: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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. .....
![Page 4: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
complexity
clean complexity• quantum theory• non first normal form
dirty complexity• islands of automation• heritage applications and systems
(smart complexity?)• (autonomics?)
bomb
![Page 5: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
the industry has a solution
let us sell you our• magic middleware
–database system–application server–messaging system
• application solution
![Page 6: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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."
dirtycomplexity
![Page 7: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
we can all grow with your needs
1 2
34
![Page 8: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
and the result is
DB
2
Oracle
Syb
ase
IMS
WebSphere app
server
CICS
WebLogic
MQRendezvousMSMQ
different dirty complexity
![Page 9: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
luckily, we have a solution
let us sell you our systems management system
database
applicationserver
messagingsystem
systemsmanagementsystem
![Page 10: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
so ....
can't you give us a more integrated solution?
but ...
![Page 11: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
so, what are our problemswhen providing middleware to
help?
database
applicationserver
messagingsystem
systemsmanagementsystem
![Page 13: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
many overlapping solutions• integrated islands• heritage products
how many transaction coordinators?how many databases?
• and even more persistent stores...
our own dirty complexity
databaseapplication
server
messagingsystem
systemsmanagementsystem
![Page 14: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
product growth example: MQ
'simple' point-to-point messaging/queuing• reliable, heterogeneous
resource manager not database because ...transaction coordinator not external because ...publish/subscribebroker
• 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 ...
![Page 15: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
so, potential for integration
common toolingcommon systems administrationcommon data and programming modeletc etc
databaseapplication
server
messagingsystem
![Page 16: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
databaseapplication server
least affinity ~~ impedance mismatchsubsumption, not integration
• even back to CICS, IMSDB subsumes application server
• stored procedures & UDFs make DB an app serverapplications subsume database
• programming persistence or object DB–removes need for (explicit) DB–but loses much DB modelling and query power?
integration potential
![Page 17: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
application serversmessaging
increased 'active' component in messagingneed for wider reach in app server
• more heterogeneity• wider geographies
–implies distributed, async–linked transaction model
integration potential
![Page 18: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
database / messaginglow level
• persistence, resource management, transactionshigh level
• transformations, data models, streamsdata placement and replication
relation
input stream result stream
integration potential
![Page 19: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
the data you want• where you want it• when you want it• in the form you want it
integration potentialsame messages, same
pictures
![Page 20: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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?
![Page 21: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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 programmingPickled chocolates
![Page 22: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
so, to summarizebig, horrid monsters
• dirty complexity
• face our customers• face the industrywhat's the solution?
(We know how to draw the picture)
• integration• federation
or ....
![Page 23: PPT](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062419/558fc9c91a28ab970b8b46f5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
brand solution
customers want integrationbut it's impossible in the real world
so rebrand federation as integration• and give them what they want• AND what they need