1. handling complexity (mess?) integration or federation Stephen Todd IBM WebSphere MQ e-Science Institute: Edinburgh 14 October 2003 The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of IBM.

2. outline  what are the difficulties facing our customers? the industry?  how should we address these difficulties integration? federation? ?

3. 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......

4. complexity  clean complexity quantum theory non first normal form  dirty complexity islands of automation heritage applications and systems  (smart complexity?) (autonomics?) bomb

5. the industry has a solution  let us sell you our magic middleware –database system –application server –messaging system application solution

6. 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." dirty complexity

7. we can all grow with your needs 1 2 3 4

8. and the result is DB2 Oracle Sybase IMS WebSphere app server CICS WebLogic MQ Rendezvous MSMQ different dirty complexity

9. luckily, we have a solution  let us sell you our systems management system database application server messaging system systems management system

10. so....  can't you give us a more integrated solution?  but...

11. 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

12. so, what are our problems when providing middleware to help? database application server messaging system systems management system

13.  many overlapping solutions integrated islands heritage products  how many transaction coordinators?  how many databases? and even more persistent stores... our own dirty complexity database application server messaging system systems management system

14. product growth example: MQ  'simple' point-to-point messaging/queuing reliable, heterogeneous  resource manager not database because...  transaction coordinator not external because...  publish/subscribe  broker 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...

15. so, potential for integration  common tooling  common systems administration  common data and programming model  etc etc database application server messaging system

16. database application server  least affinity ~~ impedance mismatch  subsumption, not integration even back to CICS, IMS  DB subsumes application server stored procedures & UDFs make DB an app server  applications subsume database programming persistence or object DB –removes need for (explicit) DB –but loses much DB modelling and query power? integration potential

17. application servers messaging  increased 'active' component in messaging  need for wider reach in app server more heterogeneity wider geographies –implies distributed, async –linked transaction model integration potential

18. database / messaging  low level persistence, resource management, transactions  high level transformations, data models, streams  data placement and replication relation input stream result stream integration potential

19.  the data you want where you want it when you want it in the form you want it integration potential same messages, same pictures

20. 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?

21. 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 programming  Pickled chocolates

22. so, to summarize  big, horrid monsters dirty complexity face our customers face the industry  what's the solution?  (We know how to draw the picture) integration federation  or....

23. brand solution  customers want integration  but it's impossible in the real world  so rebrand federation as integration and give them what they want AND what they need