Hub and Spoke or Message Bus Architectures are as legacy as tape and vinyl


Philosophy was never my strong point (although I can tell you anything you need about electrophilic reactions of osmabenzenes). 


Anyways where was I. Hub and Spoke versus Message Bus has been a long standing philosophical discussion. Well why chose one or the other when you can chose both? That’s what we did with BizTalk Server 2004 taking the best of both worlds and putting them together with the specific scenario of integration in mind.  I recommend that everyone reads this document to see what I mean.


Btw. Thanks to everyone for coming along to the Belgium Launch event. We had a lot of fun and it was just fabulous to talk to so many customers using the product in cool ways.


 


Comments (9)

  1. Jody says:

    ‘this’ link appears to be broken Scott.

  2. Scott Woodgate (MS) says:

    Your just too quick for me. All fixed.

  3. Scott Woodgate says:

    All fixed.

  4. Scott Cairney says:

    Looks likt the URL should be: http://home.comcast.net/~sdwoodgate/BTS2004topology.doc

    Scott

  5. hung says:

    Hi,

    Do you know about default pass thru transmit pipeline and xml transmit pipeline (both of these are for sending).

    That is the difference?

    Some example I work on only work on one pipeline, not the other.

    Same question for default pass thru receive and xml receive pipeline (both of these are for receiving).

    What is the difference? What is the reason to pick one over other in some situation?

    I also have problem with MSMQT (serialization problem).

    I can not get message MSMQ (regular queue) from remote machine to work with MSMQT from a local biztalk machine.

    I can work with them individually, but when they have to send/receive from each other, the serialization format got stuck (I tried every from custom serialization to etc..)

    Basically, I don’t want MSMQ and MSMQT any more, I will use SQL adapter with biztalk 2004.

    My main question here (this question has been asked before by others on some forum but biztalk 2004 is so now, no answer yet):

    I want to save the whole message (XML message from a file receive function).

    The XML message should be able to save as a whole string inside some SQL server table.

    I came a cross some example but only field by field example.

    I need to whole message as a string to work with SQL Adapter for Biztalk.

    Any recommendation?

    Thanks,

    Hung

  6. Barry Talks! says:

    After our BPELJ rant, it’s time for some reality.

  7. Suresh Kumar says:

    Thanks for that Scott…excellent!

    A long overdue subject of discussion. 😉

    So basically what i understand from the document is that the notion of a ‘bus’ depends on whether we are talking about this from a scalability or a subscription point of view.

    I see the advantage of the flexible MessageBox architecture with the stateless Host instances.

    The scope of this ‘MessageBox network’ is determined by whatever can be managed within a ‘BizTalk Group’. So, within the context of subscriptions, how does this ‘BizTalk Group’ or ‘MessageBox network’ work across an enterprise WAN?

    Are there any things we should be weary of (e.g. latency) if we employ a BizTalk ‘Bus’ (i don’t want to mention ESB – whoops already did!) as an infrastructure across an Enterprise?

    Or is it a definite no-no, and we would be better to have Zonal BizTalk Groups, and all the implications that go with that from an Operational/Admin/Deployment/Routing point of view.

  8. Hey Scott, what would be VERY valuable (for my Financial Services industry) would be a rich interop story for Tibco Rv & BTS2004, as RV is NOT going away at all on Wall Street. A much more effective arguement (and sales strategy) would be for a richer SOA integration story between Smart Client/WinForm Apps & TIB-RV using BTS2004…any thoughts?

  9. Scott Woodgate (MSFT) says:

    A couple of things. I’ve seen TIBCO (through their COM moniker) plugged into BizTalk Server so its possible and our third party partners might even have something packaged.

    To Suresh’s interesting comment. For WAN to work you would ideally want to have a name resolution/network sceheme across multiple message box "networks" so I’d say that today its zonal groups rather than one large lan. Of course that is an interesting theoretical to think about…