Skip to main content

Avoid Narrow Bridging Tools

Bridging tools allow a communications protocol or methodology change.

Generally bridging tools are unique one-off solutions and need to be avoided in a SOA integration environment. There will be some instances where only a bridging tool will do, those are when basically the only way to connect or bridge is via that tool.

The general rule is reduce bridging tools to the minimum set needed, and use the more generic SOA bus tools to replace them with a single tool or a suite.

Why? Bridging tools usually require their own environment (their own server or region) and have specialized configuration parameters and settings. Supporting them is supporting another complete application and technology. But because they are narrow use, the knowledge to support them is usually concentrated within a small group (often just 1 or 2 people).

Often a variety of bridging tools are being used in an enterprise as they were brought in over time to make connections that only they could make...at that time. Some years later the enterprise may find itself with a collection of many such tools that could easily be replaced with a newer more global tool or even a direct switch to HTTP Web Services.

Don't perpetuate the use of the narrow tools, and take advantage of projects that touch the space to migrate the older connections from them. These narrow technologies often are a major source of integration unreliability, and maintenance costs!

Just because it's from IBM or Oracle doesn't mean it's not a narrow bridging tool. Older helpful integration products have been supplanted by easy web service interfaces. Bridging tools extended with or as transformation engines are still narrow, expensive, specialized, and have been supplanted by ESB capabilities.

Popular posts from this blog

Integration Spaghetti™

  I’ve been using the term Integration Spaghetti™ for the past 9 years or so to describe what happens as systems connectivity increases and increases to the point of … unmanageability, indeterminate impact, or just generally a big mess.  A standard line of mine is “moving from spaghetti code to spaghetti connections is not an improvement”. (A standard “point to point connection mess” slide, by enterprise architect Jerry Foster from 2001.) In the past few days I’ve been meeting with a series of IT managers at a large customer and have come up with a revised definition for Integration Spaghetti™ : Integration Spaghetti™ is when the connectivity to/from an application is so complex that everyone is afraid of touching it.  An application with such spaghetti becomes nearly impossible to replace.  Estimates of change impact to the application are frequently wrong by orders of magnitude.  Interruption in the integration functioning are always a major disaster – both in terms of th

Solving Integration Chaos - Past Approaches

A U.S. Fortune 50's systems interconnect map for 1 division, "core systems only". Integration patterns began changing 15 years ago. Several early attempts were made to solve the increasing problem of the widening need for integration… Enterprise Java Beans (J2EE / EJB's) attempted to make independent callable codelets. Coupling was too tight, the technology too platform specific. Remote Method Invocation (Java / RMI) attempted to make anything independently callable, but again was too platform specific and a very tightly coupled protocol. Similarly on the Microsoft side, DCOM & COM+ attempted to make anything independently and remotely callable. However, as with RMI the approach was extremely platform and vendor specific, and very tightly coupled. MQ created a reliable independent messaging paradigm, but the cost and complexity of operation made it prohibitive for most projects and all but the largest of Enterprise IT shops which could devote a focused technology

From Spaghetti Code to Spaghetti Connections

Twenty five years ago my boss handed me the primary billing program and described a series of new features needed. The program was about 4 years old and had been worked on by 5 different programmers. It had an original design model, but between all the modifications, bug fixes, patches and quick new features thrown in, the original design pattern was impossible to discern. Any pattern was impossible to discern. It had become, to quote what’s titled the most common architecture pattern of today, ‘a big ball of mud’. After studying the program for several days, I informed my boss the program was untouchable. The effort to make anything more than a minor adjustment carried such a risk, as the impact could only be guessed at, that it was easier and less risky to rewrite it from scratch. If they had considered the future impact, they never would have let a key program degenerate that way. They would have invested the extra effort to maintain it’s design, document it property, and consider