The marketplace tells you that "middleware is everywhere" when all along it should wise up and recognize that "middleware is dead." Because that's the new reality of enterprise computing today, according to Sun's president & CEO Jonathan Schwartz.
What's more important: Running your business or integrating middleware?
Should be an obvious answer, right?
Then why is the marketplace spending so much energy wallowing in the history of "middleware is everywhere"? Habit. A habit to which thousands of IT professionals devote their lives. But integrating middleware to build one-off business systems is about to perish with the rise of shared services - the services you'd like to build once, then execute on behalf of all your business systems.
As an example, when's the last time you hired someone? Remember what it was like getting them "badged" and into the company? You had to grant them access to payroll, benefits, a desktop login, e-mail, the CRM, and forecasting systems, then assign them an office and a phone.
Most likely, your company built a unique provisioning mechanism for each of the systems I just cited. One for HR, one for the sales force, one for information security, and yet another for physical security. And then you likely created even more redundancy by building one set for your intranet employees and another for your Internet customer or supplier systems. That's inefficient, and in the world of Sarbanes-Oxley, a real problem - who has access to what? And why did you build 17 different systems?
The same is true for most services that now make far more sense in a shared environment, from portals (how many does your company have?), to e-mail and application services, down to clustering and Web servers. There's no real utility in having multiples of these services, as Nicholas Carr would point out, where your implementation doesn't generate a competitive advantage. How you authenticate users and provision them with access to your systems is an unlikely competitive advantage. So why build a one-off solution instead of relying on an integrated system?
Good question.
Our belief is that the vast majority of Web services are better run as shared services. What's the holdup, then? When we looked into this a year ago, we found three challenges:
1. Roadmap sprawl There's no coordinating force causing all the required elements of shared services (from authentication to portals, Web services to clustering) to coalesce around a common release, interoperability, or support matrix. So you have no choice but to build your own.
2. Pricing Middleware pricing is anything but shared - per CPU, per identity, per mailbox, per portal, per cluster node - pricing opacity obscures the real savings in running shared services. And if you can figure it out, you probably can't afford them.
3. Licensing The industry relies on "common access licenses," often tripling prices for services that touch the Internet - that's clearly an obstacle to shared services.
So here's how we solved the problems:
1. The rise of Sun's Java Enterprise System Sun's Java Enterprise System offers all the basic components, from directory and identity management to Web services, even e-mail and clustering. All in a single deliverable, prequalified, tested, and supported on multiple platforms.
2. Pricing goes to a $100/employee subscription Why buy software differently than how you buy office furniture - by the employee? If your workforce decreases, you pay less, and vice versa. The ultimate in predictable, transparent pricing.
3. Licensing - infinite RTU If the distinction between the intranet and extranet is disappearing, so should the distinction in our licensing. So $100/employee buys you the right to use (RTU) all these services on all systems. At infinite scale - once you've paid for your employees, your customers are free. Free. It's your software.
The vendors who believe hardware is commoditizing suggest the same forces won't affect software. We believe it affects both.
And as the world moves to recognize the value of a shared services infrastructure, it's our belief that middleware is history. Long live the system. The Java Enterprise System.
About Jonathan Schwartz Jonathan Schwartz is president and chief operating officer of Sun Microsystems. In this role he is responsible for operations and execution of Sun's day-to-day business including Systems, Software, Global Sales Operations, worldwide manufacturing and purchasing, customer advocacy and worldwide marketing. Prior to this position, he served as EVP of Sun's software group where he was responsible for the company's software technologies and business. While in this position, he revolutionized Sun's software strategy with the introduction of the Java System, an innovative collection of highly integrated software for the development, deployment and operation of Java technologies.
Ralph wrote: Total Trash!
At the very least, the
guy could write a few
paragraphs outlining why
it is dead, instead of
saying "its too
expensive" so buy our
crap. I expect more from
JDJ than this, maybe I
shouldn''t.
Guidosky wrote: The best
Sun can do to follow BEA
Systems, Gartner Group
and IBM vision on
Application Platform
Suites and SOA.
But it is nstill ot
enough to catch the front
runners.
Rod wrote: Several
respondents picked up on
this immediately:
Another thinly disguised
(if it were disguised at
all) sales pitch, with a
direct attack against
IBM.
What "Jonathon" fails to
recognize is that it is
crazy (cost prohibitive)
to rip and replace legacy
systems. Oracle pitches
a similar message (one
source - Oracle), I
think. A company who does
that risks its own
demise: while they spend
money rearchitecting
existing processes and
functionality, their
competition will push
them into oblivion.
Web Services is one of
the many keys to the
future, along with
information integration
(both EAI and EII).
Middleware helps make
that happen.
jackprogrammer: If you
can write a program to
generate marketing hype,
I am not sure if you are
a genius or sick...
Fred Smith wrote: A
catchy title yes but what
you are offering is just
your own middleware with
Sun branding. In short a
sales pitch for your own
product. Lame. Joining
the party rather late
don''t you think? A
dollar short and a day
late. Must have read
those briefs by Gartner
that this area of the
market is hot!
Serban Florea wrote: This
is just another sales
pitch for the newest
fashionable abstraction.
And those web services,
what do they run behind
the scenes, if not
middleware ?
jackprogrammer wrote:
This is really useful
stuff for all of us Java
programmers. Please give
me more! and more! Long
Live the Schwartz! I
think I could write a
program to generate this
sort of garbage.
Mark Rosenthal wrote:
Hello John,
Yes, the lack of
Canonicals costs me far
more in up-front
integration effort than
differences in format and
protocol. Couldn''t
agree more. It''s
amazing that format and
protocol get so much of
the SOA discussion
bandwidth.
But if the challenges in
establishing Canonicals
were mostly technical, I
wouldn''t still today be
having semantics
discussions with EDI
trading partners. How
long will it take for
semantic (not technical)
conformance to emerge?
Recent experience with
UCCnet is making me think
this (the semantics, not
the mechanism/technology)
is much harder than most
people thought.
Regards.
John Hardin wrote: Mr.
Rosenthal -
Yep, I work a few levels
under Tony Scott. So
regarding decoupling the
semantics from the app
that creates it... Take
an example of the UDEF
ID''s being assigned to
each data element in a
schema, or each data
element in an RDF
taxonomy. This exists as
an online resource, and
there would be resolver
services on the wire to
perform lookups and
transforms in real time.
By the way, an example
UDEF ID appears as
d.t.2_8, which is
literally translated as p
urchase.order.document_id
entifier. So the ID is an
attribute of the actual
data element.
Then consider an approach
like the new Content
Assembly Mechanism (CAM)
TC in OASIS to actually
compose the content.
Using common, or
Canonical, based formats
like OAGIS, we can
achieve real human-free
integration, where the
formats are well defined, ...
Mark Rosenthal wrote:
Hello Yadi,
If shared services
through standard protocol
and formatting make
creating point-to-point
connections between
applications easier, than
I submit they are evil.
If in a few years, a
shared service is
replaced with another
which has somewhat
different content and
semantics, then each and
every application that
was coded to directly use
that service may need to
adapt. In an environment
with a large number of
point-to-point
connections between
shared services, the
arithmetic of change
becomes absolutely
frightening.
Inter-application
"spaghetti" is not a
result of multiple
protocols and formats or
even semantics, it''s a
result of multiple
point-to-point
application connections.
If I had to make a choice
between point-to-point
shared services versus
hub-and-spoke messaging
through prop...
Yadi Hooshmand wrote:
John, Huy and all other
dear readers and software
engineers:
I strongly believe the
whole problem with the
article is in the
different interpretations
of the word middleware.
Mr. Schwartz is referring
to middleware as opposite
of shared service. I
understood what he means
by middleware is really
repeated, un-sharable,
scattered services that
are floating in an
enterprise. If this is
what he is referring to
then he really has to fix
the terminology. And if
he is referring to such
services, I agree with
that. The age of
un-shareable services has
come to an end.
But what is next. SOA
techniques have not
really matured to a level
that we can say SOA
implementation solves all
the problems. For example
we can talk about reuse
and SHARED SERVICES. A
service cannot be called
a shared service until
others ...
Huy Nguyen wrote: Hi John
I assume the following
> GM use Web service and
XML to exchange
information (or online
transactional invocation)
over some standard
protocol such as HTTP.
This requires high
bandwidth
> Significant
upgrade of hardware and
software infrastructure
to accommodate a new SOA
I would carefully
consider the following
> ROI of services within
internal as most
organization have similar
development standard and
platform (except case of
so much difference รจ I
would question about the
standards governance
practice)
> Security of
key services as far as I
know this is still key
issue with WS
> Provide a level of
playing field to partners
with Web Services is a
fair call. However, be
more careful with high
volume transactions as
high bandwidth and slow
consumer will cause
issues with expired
transaction at ...
Mark Rosenthal wrote:
Good morning John,
Is it any wonder EDI
won''t die? Even with
phonebook-sized X.12
manuals and carefully
constructed
implementation guides, we
still work through
semantic issues with EDI.
The XML based messaging
standards have a long way
to go before reaching
even that level of
conformity. It will take
multiple organizations
with influence like GM to
push this forward. To
me, this looks like a
problem that is years
away from a solution.
In the meantime... as you
pointed out previously,
how do you deal with
differences in semantics,
never mind format and
protocol? And as I
mentioned earlier, I
would add the need to
de-couple content from
the specific application
that produces it,
allowing for a change in
application architecture
over time. Don''t
hard-wire your enterprise
business content
...
john hardin wrote: Huy -
Regarding the SOA from
large corporations, I am
currently working as a
Chief Architect at
General Motors, where the
focus of the group I work
in is not only delivering
ebXML to a large group of
trading partners (30K +)
but also an internal
enterprise wide SOA.
And I agree with your
comments: the protocol I
believe should be one or
several of the OASIS and
W3 based methods,
specifically Schema and
CAM to name a few. I
believe that several will
work in concert to
provide these kinds of
services.
- john john.hardin@gm.com
Huy Nguyen wrote: Agree
in some aspects
The answer to that need
to include protocol to
bridge various systems
which often have a
completely different
infrastructure such as
O/S, protocol, languages,
threads, etc.
IMO, Java Desk Top and
Enterprised is not the
answer. One of a credible
solutions to that is
Service Oriented
Architecture which as I
mentioned still need to
convince from big
players.
-h
john hardin wrote:
Middleware will be dead,
as soon as there is an
answer to the semantic
equivalency problem! One
of the purposes of
middleware is to bridge
between formats that have
the same data elements,
but that are named
differently. For example
in OAGIS is the
same as
in
xCBL. If a company needs
to transform from OAGIS
to xCBL, there is a human
mapping effort, and map
code in middleware to
execute.
The Universal Data
Element Framework is
gaining steam in
standards bodies to
provide an open standards
based mechanism to
resolve the semantic
equivalency between
disparate formats.
Check out
http://www.udef.org and h
ttp://www.topica.com/list
s/udef.builders/read for
info including an
upcoming NIST and OAGIS
proposal for a Proof of
Concept.
john hardin
chief architect, general
motors
David B wrote:
Yea...middleware is
dead...right, just like
COBOL, CICS and mainframe
apps that have been
around forever and will
continue to be around
forever.
Huy Nguyen wrote:
commmm''on Jon
SUN Vision + Sales Talk
Middleware is not dead
now or in the near
future. SOA does look
good with high bandwith
infrastructure. SOA still
evolve to convince.
-h
Glenn Johnson wrote: It
would be far more
accurate to say that
"middleware is not
enough." Message Qeueus
(JMS, MSMQ, WebSphere MQ,
for example) all lack the
kind of cross-platform
integration framework
needed to efficiently
implement an SOA. The
major vendors all make
the mistake of trying to
force one into a single
paradigm (J2EE, .NET)
while ignoring the need
to generate legacy
objects (from 5250, 3270,
VT, CICS, COBOL, RPG,
etc.) that can be
deployed across
platforms.
Sure, as developers it
would be great to live in
a world of infinite time
and infinite investment
in software development,
but in the real world you
need to leverage existing
apps, bridge platforms
and complete projects
once in a while.
spam4tomi@yahoo.com
wrote: Middleware is dead
because we have service
oriented
architectures
everywhere? But how are
the services
communicating? Maybe
there is a new name for
Middleware
now.
Aren''t we working in a
great field, where people
create
new Hype words for
the same old solutions
all the time?
That article is only good
for non techies to
impress
each other with
there tech knowlege.
This is the story of a
Mac application developer
(okay - it's about two of
them) who set out on a
quest to find an
application development
tool based on Java so his
boss would let him
develop on the Mac
platform, which he loved.
There was only one catch
- he had to find a tool
th
SOA is mostly associated
with technologies such as
BPEL, SCA and Web
Services. But does SOA
really imply these
technologies? In this
session we will show how
you can use the service
oriented approach while
staying inside the Java
world. jBPM is a powerful
lightweight framework th
Any large Java source
base can have insidious
and subtle bugs. Every
experienced Java
programmer knows that
finding and fixing these
bugs can be difficult and
costly. Fortunately,
there are a large number
of free open source Java
tools available that can
be used to find and fix d
One of the things I
really enjoy at the
moment is the recognition
and adoption of agile
programming as a fully
fledged powerful way to
deliver quality software
projects. As its
figurehead is a group of
very talented individuals
who have created the
agile manifesto
(http://agilema
Sun Microsystems
announced it has entered
into a multi-year
agreement with On2
Technologies to add
comprehensive video
capabilities, using On2
Technologies TrueMotion
video codecs, to Sun's
JavaFX, a family of
products for creating
Rich Internet
Applications (RIAs) with
immersive
Conference in San
Francisco. Dvorak held
forth on a number of
topics, including the new
AMD/Intel lawsuit, the
viability of Java and
Sun, the value of (or
lack thereof) of
corporate PR, and whether
or not a new book about
Silicon Valley is really
worth reading.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL NEWSLETTERS
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR RSS FEEDS & GET YOUR SYS-CON NEWS LIVE!
Click to Add our RSS Feeds to the Service of Your Choice: