4 ms·
I'm a bit confused by this statement: "Cannot say the same thing for middleware technologies, such as BizTalk or NServiceBus. Databases? Out of question." I'm
by apapli 13y ago
I'm a bit confused by this statement:
"Cannot say the same thing for middleware technologies, such as BizTalk or NServiceBus. Databases? Out of question."
I'm curious about his view that middleware is not here to stay. Surely the multiple vendor cloud trend that enterprises are following (Google + salesforce + Microsoft + oracle) - because no one vendor does everything - means middleware is going to be more prevalent in the future.
Thoughts?
- aliostad 13y agoAuthor here. Point is middlewares that are not built from ground up to scale horizontally are bound to die. BizTalk uses SQL Server for its storage as such cannot be horizontally scaled. End of story. NServiceBus... well, let's not go there :)
- kstenson 13y agoNServiceBus is a very different technology than biz talk, I wouldn't call it Middleware. It basically a message based event driven transport layer. By its very nature it's extremely easy to scale horizontally.
- aliostad 13y agoIt is about High Availability. Have you ever tried to use a central broker in NSB? The best HA you get is clustering 2 machines. And that is not HA.
- kstenson 13y agoThats because NServiceBus is a Service Bus and not a broker: http://www.udidahan.com/2011/03/24/bus-and-broker-pubsub-differences/ http://www.udidahan.com/2011/03/24/bus-and-broker-pubsub-dif... For HA you simply run a distributor process for each logical event on windows cluster and add as many worker nodes as you see fit. Because NServiceBus uses the store and forward pattern if a NServiceBus process/machine hosting it goes down, you are still guaranteed the eventual delivery of messages when the process/machine is resumed.
- mitchty 13y agoAs someone that has his life in unixy land, umm, I hate to ask but what exactly (super high level is fine) is wrong with NServiceBus?