Bobby Woolf comments on my recent post on DNS-EPD with a few comments about UDDI. Namely, the "UDDI Sucks" meme. This is one that I haven't wanted to touch for a variety of reasons but can sum up my opinion by stating: there are different tools for different purposes, use whichever one makes the most sense in any given situation. DNS-EPD is a prime example. This spec provides a simple means of discovering any type of infrastructure level Web service, including-but-not-limited-to UDDI services. Will DNS-EPD be appropriate for every Web service? Absolutely not. But it does solve a real issue faced by a subset of Web service scenarios and for that reason alone it is a good technology. Likewise UDDI. While, I'll gladly stand up and say that UDDI was initially overhyped, I'll also gladly say that I have seen some very good uses of the technology, enough so to say that yes, UDDI is useful and good.
Bobby said: "There's a lot of reasons for why ESB is better, but the main differentiator is this: With UDDI, you have to know the address of all the providers of a service and choose amongst them. With ESB, you just have to put your request on the right queue and it'll get fulfilled without you having to know who the providers are or which one should handle your request. The ESB does the work for you." On one level this is exactly correct. On another level, however, the problem of discovery still exists.
UDDI and DNS-EPD
jasnell 1000001XHY 1 Comment 624 Visits