I've talked about my latest article, ESB-Oriented Architecture, and some of the reaction it's gotten (ESB-OA on InfoQ, ESB-OA on InfoWorld, ESB-OA on ZDNet, and ESB-OA on TSS). Speculation in the blogosphere included that I, or worse all of IBM, was saying that we no longer think ESBs are necessary. That lead me to try to provide clarifications, statements like "ESBs good; ESB-only projects bad," which hopefully wouldn't be too confusing.
Well here's a newsflash (not really): IBM thinks ESBs are good. We've added a sidebar to my article, written by Greg Flurry ("Discover how an ESB can help you meet the requirements for your SOA solution") and Kyle Brown ("The top Java EE best practices"), two of IBM's leading experts on ESBs and SOA in general. To quote:
Several people in the blogosphere have misinterpreted this article as suggesting that IBM is now saying that you don't need an ESB--nothing could be further from the truth. The article actually suggests (and IBM's position is) that ESBs are useful and a necessary technical infrastructure, but that they should be adopted as part of adopting an SOA.So if there was any confusion, hopefully that clarifies things. I and IBM think ESBs are good. Just do them as part of an SOA.
SOA puts the S in ESB.