Dzr guide to_enterprise_integration

2014 Guide To Enterprise Integration
DZ O N E R E S E A R C H P R E S E N T S
2 0 1 4 G U I D E T O
ENTERPRISE
INTEGRATION
BROUGHT TO YOU IN P ARTNERSHIP WITH
dzone.com/research/enterpriseintegration | dzone.com | research@dzone.com | (919) 678-0300 1

dzone.com/research/enterpriseintegration
welcome
Dear Reader,
This year has been a great year for all of us at DZone with
the success of five research guides and enormously positive
feedback from our ever-enthusiastic tech community. Our
research guides have now been downloaded over 150,000
times; we see this figure as positive evidence that the
information and data we’ve collected is being produced for
an audience that truly wants to know more about industry
topics. These guides are created for readers like you, and
I thank you sincerely for all your responses and support
throughout this journey.
Enterprise integration is one of the most prominent topics
on DZone, and it commands the largest audience for us
outside of Java. With several cheatsheets (Refcardz) already
published on various related subtopics, it’s only fitting for us
to publish this research guide at a time when our audience
on this topic has never been bigger. Enterprise integration
poses huge challenges for developers, and with so many
different technologies to choose from, finding the right
solution can be difficult.
DZone’s 2014 Guide to Enterprise Integration introduces
microservices and service-oriented architecture, explores
case studies in this field, and provides a comprehensive
solution directory for comparing the most prominent message
queues, integration frameworks and suites, ESBs, iPaaS
solutions, and API management platforms. We’ve covered
both the truly legacy approaches to enterprise architecture,
as well as growing strategies that the jury is still out on.
We’ve gathered in this guide a broad range of solutions for
integration experts of every background.
We are already looking forward to an exciting 2015 and the
new topics that will come with it. We would love to hear your
feedback on this report, thoughts on future topics, and ways
you think we can make our research guides better suited for
your needs.
Thanks again for your time and for being a part of
our great community.
Jayashree Gopal
Director of Research
research@dzone.com
table of contents
Summary & Key Takeaways
Key Research Findings
Integration Architecture: How We Got Here
By Asankha Perera & Mitch Pronschinske
Integrating Microservices Into The Enterprise
By Daniel Bryant
Decomposition Patterns for Monolithic Applications
By Daniel Bryant
Infographic Microservices: Taking a Closer Look
The Future of Developing and Integrating
Applications by Markus Eisele
The REST API Maturity Model
EI Solutions Directory
Glossary
3
4
6
10
14
18
22
24
25
35
credits
DZone Research
Jayashree GopaL
Director of Research
Mitch Pronschinske
Senior Research Analyst
Benjamin Ball
Research Analyst
Matt Werner
Market Researcher
John esposito
Refcardz coordinator
Alec Noller
senior Content Curator
John Walter
Content Curator
Ryan Spain
Content Curator
DZone CorporatE
Rick Ross
CEO
Matt Schmidt
CTO, Preside nt
Alex Crafts
vp of sales
Brandon Nokes
VP of sales , dema nd generati on
Hernâni Cerqueira
Lead Software Engineer
Kellet Atkinson
Direct or of Marketing
Chelsea Bosworth
marketing ass ociate
Ashley Slate
direct or of desig n
Farhin dorothi
Graphic Designer
Chris Smith
producti on advisor
Special thanks to our topic experts Jeremy Likness, David Dossot, James
Strachan, Pieter Hintjens, Asankha C. Perera, Markus Eisele, John Page, Ben
Mann, Daniel Bryant, and our trusted DZone Most Valuable Bloggers for all their
help and feedback in making this report a great success.
2 2014 Guide to Enterprise Integration

Summary & Key Takeaways
pplication integration is inherent to the development of a software system of any significant size. It is a complicated process, and
while there are many useful solutions, the success of the architecture is often not known for months, or even years. We created
A
this guide to help developers navigate this trial-and-error process. Our research shows that it’s the engineering staff, rather than non-technical
managers, selecting and implementing enterprise integration products and strategies. No one makes this decision for you, so
it’s more important than ever to know which solutions fit your needs. DZone’s 2014 Guide to Enterprise Integration is a unique resource
for developers and architects to learn how industry experts are handling integration in legacy enterprise systems, modern systems,
and massive web-scale systems. It contains resources that will help you succeed with modern architectural patterns and application
integration. These resources include:
• A side-by-side feature comparison of the most prominent integration frameworks, integration suites, ESBs, message
queues, and API management platforms.
• Comprehensive data sourced from 500+ IT professionals on integration solutions, strategies, and experiences.
• A model for assessing four levels of REST API maturity and implementation.
• A guide to decomposition patterns for breaking monolithic applications into smaller services.
• A forecast of how building a large project with multiple integrations might look in the future.
Key Takeaways
Companies Have Dedicated Integration Architects While some developers may think
of integration as a tedious chore, our research indicates otherwise: it is a critical area deserving of focus. A large
portion of companies (32%) have a dedicated Integration Architect to work entirely on integrating systems. This
indicates that many companies require constant specialized attention for their integration needs, and they address
these by adding team members whose primary duty is to oversee integration architecture.
Most Developers Are Building Their Own Integrations While a growing number
(but not a majority) of companies have a dedicated integration expert, most companies (68%) don’t yet have an
employee dedicated to integration. Companies have the option of using connectors and integrations built by a
vendor, but these options are often extremely expensive, or not particularly customized to the systems they need
to integrate. We found that 78% of respondents are building their own integrations, compared to only 22% that
utilize integrations built by vendors. This could be due to the need for highly customized integrations, or the high
cost of vendor tools and connectors [1].
Microservices Architecture Is Gaining Traction A significant shift in IT over the past
decade has been moving towards service-oriented architectures as an alternative to monolithic architecture, a trend
that’s currently reflected in the rising popularity of microservice architectures. Microservices have been popularized
by the success of web giants like Amazon and Netflix, who utilized microservice architecture for massive web
scalability—and were more than willing to talk about it [2]. What we discover is that 39% of organizations are
utilizing microservice architecture in at least one of their systems. So, while many of our respondents are creating
microservices, it’s not yet acquired a majority, and still has room to grow in adoption rates.
Organizations Are Utilizing REST APIs Wherever They Can The implementation of
REST principles with APIs has become extremely widespread. We found that 74% of companies were building
and utilizing REST APIs whenever and wherever they could. However, we also asked these same respondents
whether or not they were utilizing HATEOAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State), which is sometimes
considered necessary for a complete REST API [3]. Only 18% of respondents have utilized HATEOAS in their APIs,
which illustrates the disagreement of developers on the importance of certain REST API attributes.
[1] http://www.infoworld.com/article/2678499/operating-systems/ibm-to-ship-db2-integration-software.html
[2] http://www.slideshare.net/stonse/microservices-at-netflix
[3] http://restcookbook.com/Basics/hateoas/
DOES YOUR
COMPANY HAVE
AN INTEGRATION
ARCHITECT?
26% YES
68%
6%
NO
SIMILAR
TITLE
DO YOU
UTILIZE
REST APIs
WHEREVER
POSSIBLE? 74%
YES
26%
NO
18%
YES
82%
NO
HAVE YOU
USED
HATEOAS IN
YOUR APIs?

KEY
RESEARCH
FINDINGS
More than 500 IT professionals responded to DZone’s 2014 Enterprise
Integration Survey. Here are the demographics for this survey:
• Developers (45%) and development team leads (30%) were the most common roles.
• 69% of respondents come from large organizations (100 or more employees) and 31% come from
small organizations (under 100 employees).
• The majority of respondents are headquartered in Europe (48%) or the US (28%).
• Over half of the respondents (70%) have over 10 years of experience as IT professionals.
• A large majority of respondents’ organizations use Java (94%). JavaScript is the next highest (47%).
51%
CRM
47%
ERP
55%
BI/ANALYTICS
50%
DOCUMENT
MANAGEMENT
MOST
COMMON
SYSTEM
INTEGRATIONS
Analytics Systems are the Most Common
Integration BI/Analytics is the most common type of
system integrated in respondents’ architectures (55%), followed
closely by CRM (51%), document management (50%), and
ERP (47%). Analytics and Big Data systems have clearly come
front and center in the integration space, despite the varieties
and speeds of data translation and integration required. Data
integration is an often underappreciated aspect of building and
utilizing analytics systems.
ADDITIONAL TOOLS NEEDED IN AN EI SOL UTION
54% API MANAGEMENT
SERVICE ORCHESTRATION
BPM
NONE
52%
36%
18%
Less Manual API Integration is Becoming
Preferable 62% of respondents say they often have
difficulty manually integrating APIs. Another data point that
supports this sentiment is the prominence of API management
tools as the most common additional tool that respondents
need for their enterprise integration solutions (54%). In contrast,
only 10% of all respondents actually use an API management
platform. Service orchestration (52%) is the other major tool
that respondents want in an EI solution. 18% don’t need any
additional tools.
JSON Favored Slightly for APIs There are a few
significant dichotomies in the IT community centered around
API development. Some aspects of API development have
competing protocols and languages, such as JSON vs. XML and
WS-Security vs. OAuth. When asked which technologies they
are more comfortable with, developers split evenly between the
WS-Security protocol (37%) and OAuth (38%). For JSON vs. XML,
JSON had a slight edge (55%) over XML (45%).
WHICH PROTOCOLS/LANGUAGES ARE YOU
HAVEN’T USED
MORE COMFORTABLE WITH?
25% 37%
38%
OAuth
WS-Security
EITHER
JSON 45% 55%
XML

ESBs VS LIGHTWEIGHT INTEGRATION FRAMEWORKS
INTEGRATION
FRAMEWORKS
ESBs OR INT.
SUITES
NEITHER
63% 53% 18%
Lightweight EIP Frameworks Are the Norm for Most
Systems Out of all integration frameworks (EIP), ESBs, and
integration suites, Spring Integration is the most popular (42%) and
Apache Camel is a close second (38%). The three most popular
ESBs are Mule ESB (16%), WebSphere ESB (15%), and Oracle ESB
(13%). Overall, 63% of respondents use an integration framework
(e.g. Spring Integration, Camel) and 53% use an ESB or Integration
Suite (e.g. Mule ESB, Biztalk), while 18% say they use neither. Note
that 69% of respondents are from large organizations, where bigger
integration scenarios would be more common.
EAI TOOLS VS MQs
76%
MESSAGE
QUEUES
82%
ESBs & INT.
FRAMEWORKS
Comprehensive Message Queues Lead in
Popularity Although there has been a recent surge in
popularity for bare-bones, low-latency message queues like
ZeroMQ (4%), full-featured messaging systems like ActiveMQ
(46%) and RabbitMQ (20%) are the clear leaders in message
queue popularity. HornetQ (9%), IBM WebSphere MQ (8%), and
Microsoft MQ (8%) are also fairly popular among the rest of the
queues, and 24% don’t use any message queues. Compare this
with integration frameworks and ESBs, and we find that 82% use
integration frameworks and ESBs, while 76% use MQs.
WHAT ARE YOUR ORGANIZATION’S
BIGGEST INTEGRATION DIFFICULTIES?
58%
57%
36%
26%
STANDARDS INTE RPRETATION DIFFE RENCES
PR OPAGATING CHANGES
ASY NC MESSAGE MANAGEMENT
DATA ENRICHM ENT
Cloud Integration is Not a Common Issue Only 37%
of organizations have to manage on-premise-to-cloud integrations,
and 15% have to manage cloud-to-cloud integrations. While
integration with newly built or purchased cloud services is often
cited as a major technical undertaking, only 9% cite cloud-to-on-
premise integration as a major integration issue, and 5%
cited cloud-to-cloud integration. The two biggest integration
difficulties for organizations are handling different interpretations
of standards between systems (58%) and propagating changes to
integrated systems (57%).
INTEGRATION COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL IT COSTS
43% 38%
SAID 0-25% SAID 25-50%
18% 1%
SAID 50-75% SAID 75-100%
Integration Costs Not Huge, But Significant
Regarding the number of integrations in an organization, 74% of
respondents say they integrate 10 systems or fewer in their largest
applications. Less than 1% integrated only one system. As for the
cost of those integrations, 43% say integration accounts for less
than 25% of their total IT costs. A smaller, but still concerning
segment (38%) says that integration accounts for between 25%
and 50% of total IT costs. So, about one third of businesses are
spending significant portions of their IT budgets on integration.

Integration Architecture:
How We Got Here by Asankha Perera &
Name some of the most interesting software
systems you know and I’ll bet that they’ve had to deal
with integration.
Particularly in enterprises (even the small ones), multiple applications,
systems, and components need to work together and give employees,
partners, and customers the performance and feel of a single
application. However, many architects design integrations the way they
would design a single application, unaware that the nature of integration
significantly alters the way applications must be developed. Let’s briefly
look at when enterprise integration first became a topic of intense focus
in the modern IT industry.
EAI: The Origins
Back when enterprises were built on large mainframes and
minicomputer-based application systems, Enterprise Application
Integration (EAI) evolved as a mechanism to allow the exchange of
information between systems without having each application create
information silos within organizations. Methods for integration included
file transfers, shared databases, and application functionality access
via remote procedures. These methods are still used today wherever
they are appropriate. A good example is the Extract Transform and Load
(ETL) method, which is a file transfer integration strategy often favored
for large, batch data analysis.
Many systems from the mainframe era were batch-oriented
and generally based on files and databases, which lead to EAI
technologies evolving around the ETL method. Although ETL
mechanisms allowed the integration of applications implemented in
different technologies or residing across different systems, it did not
provide a solution for real-time integration needs. Shared databases
and remote procedure invocations also didn’t perform well for real-time
integration because of one persistent obstacle: the unpredictable
interruptions of computer networks.
MOM: A Paradigm Shift in EI
In the 1990s, Point-to-Point (P2P) integration using Messaging-Oriented
Middleware (MOM) emerged as one of the most versatile technologies
to support both real-time and non real-time needs. Messaging systems
use channels (queues) that other applications can read and recognize.
Each application using the queue has to have a sender/producer
program or a receiver/consumer program. These endpoints contain
some form of message storage so that, even if the network connection
Mitch Pronschinske
is down, the program will know that a message hasn’t gone through
and will queue it. This type of communication is more efficient because
it can be asynchronous, meaning that the consumer can handle
messages received in any order, and it can wait to handle messages
until the appropriate time. The communication is also non-blocking, so
if one message is taking a long time, the channel and the consumer
can still handle other messages while it’s waiting. Message queues
can even support systems with one producer and many consumers,
such as the publish-subscribe paradigm. These messaging paradigms
defined the message bus topology, which became widely used with the
advent of Java Messaging Service (JMS) APIs.
Another popular topology for message queues is the broker
model (hub and spoke topology), which uses a central hub that all
communications pass through for inspection, management, translation,
and routing. This allows for better governance of systems, but the
downside is that forcing each message to pass through the hub
introduces latency, and can be a possible single point of failure.
Message queues are widely used today. Hardware and software
design enhancements have significantly improved the performance of
these systems over the years. The market has also made significant
advancements toward open protocols for messaging, such as the
Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), which started the trend
in 2004. These developments have brought down the cost of MOM
and pushed distributed systems into wider use.
The Enterprise Service Bus
Inside enterprises, where the central governance of a broker topology
is traditionally more appealing, the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
emerged as a technology that took advantage of the strengths of both
broker and message bus topologies. It’s not a perfect analogy, but you
could say that message queues are like the popular code editors (e.g.
SublimeText), while ESBs are like IDEs (e.g. Eclipse). Queues can do a
lot and still be lightweight, but ESBs try to cover more scenarios and
provide more tools out of box.
ESB solutions also emerged at a time when web services, especially the
SOAP protocol, were becoming widespread. ESBs quickly moved to offer
built-in support for web services along with other protocols and message
formats. Although some of the early ESB solutions were implemented on
top of older MOM implementations, or required Java EE containers for
the run-time, the space quickly evolved to support higher performance
and lightweight deployment patterns. Today, there are a few vendors with
more than one ESB offering, depending on the needs of customers.

A fully-formed ESB product or open source distribution isn’t the only
option either. Minimal frameworks that harness all of the well-known
enterprise integration patterns (e.g. Apache Camel, Spring Integration)
can be paired with a message queue and other open source frameworks
to provide smart routing, transformation, orchestration, and other
features of ESBs.
Service-Oriented Architecture
Loose-coupling and modular applications were nothing new in the
2000s, but a stronger emphasis on these strategies started when
messaging integration paradigms made it easier to build modular
pieces of software that worked together to form complete systems and
applications. This is when the idea of Service-Oriented Architecture
(SOA) came into mainstream use. The goal of SOA is to make software
architecture more flexible to change. It is an architecture style that uses
discrete software services, each having one clearly defined business
task, with well-defined, loosely-coupled interfaces that are orchestrated
to work as a complete system by sharing functionality.
Developers generally try to build loosely-coupled
software components in their
applications, so the basic concept of SOA
is intuitive to many developers. In the
late 2000’s, however, the perception of
SOA became tied to the ESB architecture,
which many argue is not the best way
to build SOA. Though I’ve given the
basic definition of SOA above, it is
trickier to define in practice [1]. ESBs
and SOA received some backlash from
the development community because
enterprise-scale ESBs often seem to
have too many unnecessary features
or too strict a tie to a vendor’s product
suite. Developers using ESBs also tend to
use them as a place to hide complexity,
instead of dealing with it more effectively.
Will
microservices
become the
new standard
of scalable
architecture?
Microservices
Major web companies like Netflix and SoundCloud have recently put
the spotlight back on SOA after sharing their methods for integration
and scalability, which center around an architecture composed of
microservices. Some developers are saying that microservices are what
SOA is supposed to be, but regardless of whether microservices fall
under that broad definition, their definition is much clearer.
The community that has formed around microservices favors an
integration approach that differs from the classic ESB strategy.
Instead of a smart ESB mediator in the middle of the services-based
architecture, microservices will connect to each other by having smart
endpoints on each service and having dumb pipes—which are fast
messaging channels with very little logic present in the transfer stage
[2]. Microservices, like their name implies, are also strict about the size
of each service. Each microservice tends to make up one business
feature of the system. A microservice is a unit of software that can be
independently removed, plugged in, and upgraded. Unlike software
libraries, they are out-of-process components that communicate via web
services, remote procedure calls, or other similar methods. This strict
componentization makes it easy to have cross-functional developers or
teams dedicated to each service, and that’s exactly what Netflix does.
API Architectures
Integrating systems with websites and applications made by other
people was another challenge in the history of integration that is
handled today through web APIs. The architectural patterns of web APIs
have made it easier for developers to connect unfamiliar software to
their own projects, whether they’re from another department in a large
enterprise, or from an entirely different company. There are certainly
strong opinions about the mechanisms being used in these APIs (SOAP
vs REST, XML vs JSON, or HATEOAS vs pragmatic REST), but each
option has its pros and cons. An organization needs to find the right
fit for their needs. The current focus for many toolmakers is building
solutions that can manage an API-dense architecture and marketplace.
iPaaS
As cloud services proliferated several years ago, integration
with those services and on-premise systems was another major
challenge for the industry. While there are many possible solutions
to this obstacle—many involving a new way of thinking given the
distributed, elastic nature of cloud infrastructure—an obvious
solution was to build integration utilities into cloud development
platforms. The iPaaS (integration Platform-as-a-Service) has emerged
as a viable option for providing integration utilities similar to those
found in ESBs, but with various cloud integration scenarios in mind.
The EI Outlook
The core messaging paradigm of modern integration is likely here to
stay for many more years as we enter a new era of connected devices
through the Internet of Things. ESBs are still a great solution for many
tech firms given the variety of options from lightweight to large legacy-integration
scale. SOA may fade into obscurity as a term, but its patterns
and lessons will live on in the fabric of modern development, especially
in emerging microservices architecture. Will microservices become
the new standard of scalable architecture? Loose-coupling is already a
standard, but microservices will take some time to become mainstream,
and if they do, there will always be enterprises that misuse its patterns
and give it a bad name.
References:
[1]: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ServiceOrientedAmbiguity.html
[2]: http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html
WRITTEN BY Asankha Perera
Asankha Perera is the founder and CTO of AdroitLogic—
the creators of the free and open source Enterprise
Service Bus UltraESB. He is a member of the Apache
Software Foundation and the VP of the Apache
HttpComponents project.
WRITTEN BY Mitch Pronschinske
Mitch Pronschinske is the Head Analyst for DZone’s
Research division. He has been writing, curating, and editing
content for an audience of IT professionals for over five
years. In that time, he has understood the complexity that
software producers deal with on a daily basis and strives to make their
world easier to understand and digest.

2014 Guide to Enterprise Integration

Pick the Right Application Server to
Fully Benefit From Java EE
Java Enterprise Edition (Java EE), the widely adopted platform for
developing and running enterprise applications and web services, has
evolved significantly over the years. The platform provides an API and
runtime environment for developing and running enterprise software,
including network and web services, and other large-scale, multi-tiered,
scalable, reliable, and secure network applications. To effectively
extend the benefits of using Java EE, an enterprise must have an
application that’s multi-tenant and lightweight. Most enterprises today
are looking to migrate from traditional application servers to those that
support Java EE specifications.
WSO2 Application Server (WSO2 AS)—an Apache Tomcat-based
web application hosting platform—is one that meets these enterprise
requirements; it currently supports Java EE, and the next major version
is set to look at supporting a complete set of Java EE WP technology
specifications. Switching to WSO2 AS enables Java EE developers to
leverage a number of platform-level features supported by the WSO2
middleware platform, such as multi-tenancy, SaaS development,
embedded API management, and real-time analytics.
WSO2 AS inherits an in-built user store from the WSO2 Carbon framework,
and it’s possible to plug any existing user store such as LDAP, Active
Directory, or custom JDBC easily through configuration options. Hence,
when migrating applications, it is possible to reuse existing custom and
standard user stores with WSO2 AS through configuration options.
The following table describes supported Java EE WP technologies on
WSO2 AS.
Technology AS version Integrated framework
Servlet 3.0 5.0.0 Apache Tomcat 7 (*)
JSP 2.2 , EL 2.2 &
JSTL 1.2 5.1.0 Apache Tomcat 7 / Jasper
(*)
JSF 5.2.0 Apache MyFaces
JPA 2.0 5.2.0 Apache OpenJPA
JTA 1.1 5.2.0 Atomikos JTA
CDI 1.0 Future Apache OpenWebBeans
Baan Validation 1.0 Future Apache BVal
EJB - Lite Future Apache OpenEJB (**)
(*) WSO2 AS plans to use Apache Tomcat 8 when it matures
(**) Some of the Apache TomEE components will be used for WSO2
AS - Apache OpenEJB integration
Take a look at the WSO2 whitepaper, Evaluating Java EE Application
Migration and Java EE Service Migration to WSO2 Application Server for
more details.
WRITTEN BY Sagara Gunathung, Senior Technical Lead, WSO2
ESB
WSO2 ESB By WSO2
WSO2’s ESB operates at high performance and has a wide range of integration capabilities and connectors,
including support for EIPs.
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
Standalone
Open source
Yes
description
WSO2 ESB is a 100% open source, lightweight,
high performance ESB which supports various
enterprise integration scenarios. It’s 100%
compliant with all EIPs and offers built-in support
for cloud (multi-tenancy, etc.). WSO2 ESB offers
adaptors and connectors from various web APIs
such as Salesforce to proprietary systems such
as SAP. It’s a part of the comprehensive WSO2
middleware platform.
Dependencies
Java
Features:
 BPEL
 Service Orchestration
 Failover Handling
 Federation
 Web Deploy Console
 Service Mocking
 GUI for monitoring services
 Integrated artifact repository
 Automatic recovery of flows
 Distributed transaction support
 Can build own adapters
 Expose metrics through JMX
• Trimble
• AAA
• Cisco
blog wso2.com/library/ TWITER @wso2 website wso2.com
Customers
• eBay
• T-Systems

Integrating Microservices
into the Enterprise by Daniel Bryant
The microservice hype is everywhere, and
although the industry can’t seem to agree on an
exact definition, we are repeatedly being told
that moving away from a monolithic application
to a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)
consisting of small services is the correct way to
build and evolve software systems.
Companies of all sizes are beginning to evaluate this architectural style
despite concerns about the actual benefits and the higher potential
for complexity. Whether or not you agree with the proposed benefits
of this latest incarnation of SOA, the desire to investigate microservice
implementations is rapidly growing in enterprise organizations. This
article will serve as a useful primer for that research.
Interfaces—Good contracts make good neighbors
Whether you are starting a greenfield microservice project or are
tasked with deconstructing an existing monolith into services, the first
task is to define the boundaries and corresponding APIs to your new
components. A greenfield project often has more flexibility, and the
initial design stage can define Domain Driven Design (DDD) inspired
bounded contexts with explicit responsibilities and contracts between
service provider and consumer (for example, using Consumer Driven
Contracts). However, a typical brownfield project must look to create
“seams” within the existing applications and implement new (or
extracted) services that integrate with the seam interface. The goal is for
each service to have high cohesion and loose coupling; the design of
the service interface is where the seeds for these principles are sowed.
Communication—To synchronize, or not to
synchronize?
In addition to the definition of service interfaces, another primary
design decision is whether to implement synchronous or asynchronous
communication. Asynchronous communication is often favored, as this can
lead to more loosely-coupled, and hence less brittle, services. However,
my consulting firm’s experience has shown that each use case should
be examined on its own merits, and requirements around consistency,
availability, and responsiveness (e.g. latency) should be considered
carefully. In practice, we find that many companies will need to offer both
synchronous and asynchronous communication in their services.
The current de facto synchronous communication mechanism in
microservice architecture is provided by creating a REST-like API
that exposes resources on a service, typically using JSON over
HTTP. Interface Definition Language (IDL) implementations utilizing
binary protocols, such as Thrift or Avro, can also be used if RPC-like
communication or increased performance is required. However, caution
should also be taken against utilizing too many different protocols
within a single system, as this can lead to integration problems and
maintenance issues.
An implementation of an IDL interface typically comes with its own
implicit (and often versioned) contract, which can make integration and
testing against endpoints easier. Explicit tooling must be implemented
for contract-based development of REST-like interfaces. The PACT
framework is a good example that provides both service virtualization
for consumers and contract validation against an API for providers.
Once services and API endpoints are created, they can be deployed
and managed in-house. However, many enterprises are instead
choosing to offload API management and are instead using API
Gateway services, such as Apigee, 3Scale, or Mashery. Regardless
of deployment methodology, the problems of fault tolerance and
resilience must be handled with synchronous communication. Design
patterns such as retries, timeouts, circuit-breakers, and bulkheads must
be implemented in a system of any size, especially if load will be high
or the deployment fabric is volatile (e.g. a cloud environment). One
excellent framework that provides an implementation of these patterns
is Netflix’s Hystrix, which has also been combined with Dropwizard in
the “Tenacity” project and Spring Boot in the “Spring Cloud” project.
Lightweight message queue (MQ) technology is often the favored
method for implementing asynchronous communication. RabbitMQ
and ActiveMQ are the two most popular choices [1]. Frequently these
MQs are combined with reactive frameworks, which can lead to the
implementation of event-driven architectures, another emerging
hot topic within our industry. Enterprises seeking high performance
messaging can look at additional MQ technologies such as ZeroMQ,
Kafka, or Redis. If their requirements include high throughput/low
latency processing of messages or events, then one of the current
stream-based Big Data technologies may be more appropriate, such
as Spring XD or Apache Storm. Interface contracts tend to be loose
with asynchronous communication since messages or events are
typically sent to a broker for relay onto any number of interested
services. Postel’s law of “be conservative in what you send, be liberal
in what you accept” is often touted as a key principle for both provider
and consumer services. If your development team is exploring
asynchronous communication for the first time, then some care must be
taken, because the programming model can be significantly

different in comparison with synchronous blocking communication.
Finally, although many MQ services provide fault tolerance, it is
highly recommended that you confirm your requirements against the
deployment configuration of your MQ broker.
Middleware—What about the traditional enterprise
stalwarts?
With the mention of REST-like endpoints and lightweight messaging,
many enterprise middleware vendors are understandably becoming
nervous. When my consulting firm discusses the microservice
architecture with enterprise clients, many look at implementation
diagrams and immediately ask whether the message broker sitting
in between all of the services is a commercial Enterprise Service Bus
(ESB)—such has been the success of the ESB marketing campaign. We
typically answer that it could be, but we usually find that a lightweight
MQ platform is more suitable because we believe the current trend in
SOA communication is towards “dumb pipes and smart endpoints” [2].
In addition to removing potential vendor fees and lock-in, other benefits
of using lightweight MQ technologies include easier deployment,
management, and simplified testing. Although many heavyweight ESBs
can perform some very clever routing, they are frequently deployed as a
black box. Jim Webber once joked that ESB should stand for “Egregious
Spaghetti Box,” because the operations performed within proprietary
ESBs are not transparent, and are often complex. If requirements dictate
the use of an ESB (for example, message splitting or policy-based
routing), then open source lightweight ESB implementations such as
WSO2 ESB, Mule ESB, and Fuse ESB should be among the first options
you consider.
On a related topic, we have found that although many companies would
like to split monolithic systems, the Enterprise Integration Patterns
(EIPs) contained within the corresponding applications are often still
valid. Accordingly, we believe the use of EIP frameworks such as Spring
Integration and Apache Camel still have their place within a microservice
architecture. These frameworks typically provide a large amount of
“bang for your buck” in relation to the amount of code written (which
may be an important factor when creating a microservice), and they
nicely abstract over archetypal EIP solutions. These frameworks can also
be introduced as an intermediate step when migrating to a microservice
architecture. Refactoring existing code to utilize EIPs, such as “pipes and
filters,” may allow components to be extracted to external services more
easily at a later date.
Deployment—“Done” means deployed to production
Deploying microservices can be a challenge for new adopters because
existing frameworks, platforms, and processes for releasing a monolith
into production may not scale well with multiple services in the mix.
Bob Martin has recently discussed the “component scalability scale”
on his blog. Martin suggested that components/services deployment
configuration can range from multiple microservices deployed across a
cluster to a service created by dynamically linking components (e.g. via
JARs) and deploying them into a single VM. This is a useful model, and
below is a list of related technologies that can be explored depending
on your use case:
• Microservices deployed onto a cluster: Spring Boot, Dropwizard,
Ratpack services, or container-based services (e.g. Docker) deployed on
Mesos with Marathon, Kubernetes, CoreOS Fleet, or a vendor-specific
PaaS. Service discovery via Consul, Smartstack, or Curator ensemble.
• Small number of servers, each running more than one microservice:
Spring Boot or Dropwizard services deployed as a WAR into containers
or running as fat JARs containing an embedded container (e.g.
Jetty, Tomcat). Service discovery via Consul, Smartstack, or Curator
ensemble.
• Single server, multiple microservices: Spring Boot or Dropwizard
services running on configurable ports deployed within multiple
embedded containers (e.g. Jetty or Tomcat). Service discovery via
Curator, local HAProxy, or properties file.
• Services running as threads in a single VM: Akka actors or Vert.x
Verticles deployed as a JAR running on a single JVM. Service (actor)
discovery implicit within Akka and Vert.x frameworks.
• Dynamically linked components within a single service: OSGi bundle
deployed via Apache Felix or Apache Karaf. No need for service
discovery, but correct bundling of components is vital.
The list above contains just a few examples. However you choose to
deploy microservices, it is essential that a build pipeline include rigorous
automated testing for functional requirements, fault-tolerance, security, and
performance.
Summary—APIs, lightweight comms, and correct
deployment
Regardless of whether you subscribe to the microservice hype, it would
appear that this style of architecture is gaining traction within enterprise
integration development. This article has attempted to provide a primer
for understanding key concepts within this growing space. Ultimately,
microservices are a deployment detail and if you practice good loose-coupling
strategies, then changing deployment styles should not
incur large development costs. Simon Brown, a well-known software
architecture consultant, said it best: “If you can’t build a structured
monolith, what makes you think microservices is the answer?” [3]. This
question, although outside the scope of this article, is extremely pertinent
and is something that we should all consider before embarking on a new
microservice project. Microservices may provide a very useful architectural
and deployment style, but they certainly are not a panacea to all of your
current software development problems. However, if you do decide that
the microservice approach is appropriate for your application, then I hope
that this article is a useful springboard for your research and evaluation.
References:
[1]: Key Research Findings, pg. 5
[2]: http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html
[3]: http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2014/10/01/modularity_and_testability.html
WRITTEN BY Daniel Bryant
Daniel Bryant is a Principal Consultant for OpenCredo, a software
consultancy and delivery company dedicated to helping clients
deliver better software faster. Currently, Daniel specializes in
enabling agility, continuous integration, continuous delivery,
and other DevOps methodologies. He is also a leader within the London Java
Community, and a contributor to the Java Community Process (JCP).

You Are What You API
5 Steps To A Rock Solid API Program
Provide a Valuable Service
APIs are becoming mainstream, but a “me too” API is a poor
investment – an API must deliver value both for the provider and its
potential audience. You need to get this right.
It can be hard to pinpoint one audience, and focus is often on the API
project itself. Instead, the focus should be on of the effect the API can
deliver. Ask yourself – what job should it do for the business? Is it in
line with broader goals? What job does it do for its users?
Tie The Model To Your Business
Instead of asking, “What business model should I use for my API?” you
should be asking, “What API can best support my business model?”
Start with your business and extend to how an API can enable it.
Make It Simple, Flexible, and Easy
Sounds obvious, but simplicity can be thwarted by things like complex
use cases or legacy code. Make sure important use cases are
easy to execute and the common workflows are supported. Good
documentation is a must.
Put Management in Place
Your API is a window to your data assets
and functionality. Powerful, but it creates
dependencies between you and your users.
Who has rights? How do they get access? How
is it secured and versioned? How are changes
detected and communicated? Are there
restrictions, charges, or SLAs?
API Management Platforms provide the security,
performance monitoring, and analytics tools
needed to keep APIs operating effectively.
Ensure Developer Delight
The best APIs excel at support. They put portals
and people in place to help developers succeed.
Support needs to be a first class citizen in the
planning process — not an after-thought.
WRITTEN BY steven willmott, ceo, 3scale
Start
with your
business
and extend
to how
an API can
enable it.
API management
3scale API Management Platform By 3scale
API management delivered as-a-service via unique, high performing hybrid/cloud architecture. Delivers
unmatched flexibility and scale.
description
3scale provides a comprehensive API
management platform that lets API providers
easily package, distribute, manage, and
monetize APIs through a SaaS infrastructure
that is flexible, secure, and Web scalable.
The platform enables the distribution of
a company’s data, content, or services to
multiple devices or mobile/Web applications,
as well as the ability to easily productize
APIs. Hosting Options
 API Gateway
 API Publisher
 API Dev Portal
 Scheduled reporting
 Batch reporting
 Multi-tenant architecture
On-premise; SaaS
Open source
No
Customers
Features:
 Web Console
 Parallel Version
 3rd Party Gateways
 External Key Systems
 Proxy-Based Forwarding
 Full-featured CMS
 Security fire walling
• UC Berkeley
• Skype
• wine.com
• JustGiving
• SITA
• Transport For London
Blog 3scale.net/blog/ TWITER @3scale website 3scale.net
• Johnson Controls
• Crunchbase

Decomposition Patterns
for Monolithic Applications
Content and graphics authored by Daniel Bryant
Many enterprise organizations are looking
to decompose monolithic applications
into smaller services.
As a result, we are also seeing the emergence of common patterns
for breaking down the monoliths. Outlined below are three key
decomposition patterns with information about the reasons to use,
reasons not to use, and suggested implementation techniques.
First, you’ll want to familiarize yourself with the diagram key here:
Decomposing by Business Functionality
MONOLITH
This decomposition pattern involves creating (or extracting) an entire business unit
function into a service and providing a corresponding API that can be called by
services further upstream in the application stack. A typical example of this pattern
is creating a standalone “user service.” This is the canonical microservice pattern,
which provides a bounded context that models part of the business domain.
Reasons to use:
• Increased (or independent) scalability is needed for isolated business functionality.
• Existing application code can easily be divided into logical units of business functionality (i.e.
bounded contexts).
• New or modified features specified for the business units being extracted are well-defined.
Reasons not to use:
• Pre-existing monolith already provides highly cohesive functionality.
• Wide distribution or low cohesion of upstream call sites (e.g. code calling a new service is
spread haphazardly throughout the application).
• Requirements of the business unit are in flux, which can lead to failure of project regardless
of technical success.
Implementation:
• Implement synchronous operations as REST-like APIs and asynchronous operations via
message queue (MQ).
• Consider use of Command Query Responsibility Segregation (CQRS) and Event-Sourcing
(ES) patterns.
• Coordination services must be created to orchestrate upstream calls, effectively
implementing the Front Controller or Mediator design pattern.
THE
CONTROLLER
LAYER
SERVICE
LAYER
REPO/ADAPTER
LAYER
RESOURCES
EXT.
API
DATA
STORE
CLIENT
MESSAGE
QUEUE

Decomposing by Technical Functionality
This type of decomposition involves the extraction of a purely technical function into a
service, which is often called by a number of separate upstream business unit services or
the monolith. An example of this pattern is the creation of an email service.
Reasons to use:
• Increased scalability is required for technical functionality (e.g. increased throughput or
reduced latency).
• Existing technical functionality can be logically grouped, but is strongly coupled with existing
application code.
Reasons not to use:
• Unclear requirements from the underlying technology (e.g. implementation of integration to a new
third-party service).
• Wide-ranging or long-running transactions in upstream services (distributed transactions are
inherently complex).
• Domain-Driven Design implementation required (this decomposition does not provide true
bounded contexts).
Implementation:
• Isolate the underlying data store, middleware, or external services behind service façades using a
REST-like API for sync communication or MQ platform for async.
• Evaluate the requirements for existing transaction boundaries and consider introducing eventual
consistency; confirm if traditionally implemented ACID guarantees are essential throughout
application stack.
• Favor async communication to increase robustness.
Decomposing by Vertical Slice
This pattern involves the extraction of a slice vertically through the entire application
stack. It differs from “decomposing by business functionality,” as the vertical slice includes
the provision of a service from the highest (ingress) layer—for example, the UI or public
API—whereas the business functionality decomposition only extracts part of the vertical
(typically at the bottom of the stack). It also provides an API that upstream services or the
monolith may call.
Reasons to use:
• Isolated deployment of functionality within slice required (i.e encapsulate what varies).
• Increased or independent scalability of functionality within slice required (e.g. user registration
page requires high throughput).
• Good opportunity to prototype and evaluate the microservice approach throughout entire
application stack.
• Easy isolation of microservice work (and resulting artifacts) from normal development activities.
Reasons not to use:
• Large number of layers in stack.
• Convoluted application layering (e.g. use of multiple middleware platforms).
• Unclear requirements for slice functionality.
• Lack of stakeholder commitment; this pattern can be the most difficult to orchestrate across a typical
development team.
Implementation:
• Utilize proxy (HAProxy, nginx) as “front controller” to redirect appropriate ingress traffic to new
vertical.
• Implement REST-like API and delegate async operations to MQ (potentially using callbacks at ingress
UI or public API layer).
• API gateway platform can be utilized to deploy and manage new services.
ROUTING LAYER

Beyond Traditional Enterprise Integration:
Bi-Modal IT
Traditional integration technology and tools are no longer enough for
enterprises to stay competitive. Trends like big data, cloud and the Internet of
Things are driving a massive proliferation of apps, data and devices. Couple
with this the increasing consumer demand for mobile apps and it becomes
clear that a company’s competitive advantage is tied to how well they can
connect their apps, data and devices. Companies that try to keep up with
custom code soon find that the tight coupling of their applications locks
them down. They can’t change quickly enough to meet the demands on the
enterprise. A new approach is needed.
The new trend in IT is “Bi-Modal IT.” Mode 1 is actually well known. Mode 1 is
the “heads down” traditional IT we all have known. Change doesn’t happen
quickly, but important development and governance happens in Mode 1.
Mode 2 is innovation mode, Rapid IT. Mode 2 makes rapid connectivity
and app development possible. These two modes fit together and rely
upon one another. For example, Mode 1 - through governed APIs - provides
access to ‘system of record’ data. Mode 2 then makes it possible for existing
investments in APIs (or SOA) to be leveraged. Mode 2 creates a landscape
where application data is mostly available, reducing demands on IT to
perform one-off integrations. Mode 2 also allows Line of Business IT to be
more autonomous, but work with central IT rather than going around them to
get data for their applications.
It sounds good, but it leaves IT wondering how they are going to run
everything in two modes. This is where an agility layer is critical for achieving
Mode 2: Rapid IT. This layer sits between traditional enterprise integration
and new digital business channels such as mobile apps, partner connections
and micro apps. This layer combines legacy integration with SaaS integration
and API publishing. It provides unified connectivity across all enterprise
assets to unlock and maximize the value of their data. At MuleSoft we built
the leading integration platform to address this agility layer. MuleSoft’s
Anypoint Platform is the only complete integration platform for SaaS, SOA
and APIs. Anypoint Platform gives IT the freedom to connect what they want,
when they want, whether they are event-driven, real-time data or batch data,
on-premises or in the cloud.
WRITTEN BY Ross Mason,
Founder and vice president of product strategy, MuleSoft Inc.
ESB, IPAAS, API MANAGEMENT
Anypoint Platform By Mulesoft
Anypoint Platform includes core integration runtime environments: Mule ESB (for on-premises) and CloudHub (an iPaaS). The platform also includes a unified
graphical design environment, connectivity to any data source, management, monitoring, and Anypoint Platform for APIs (platform and tools to build new
APIs, design new interfaces for existing APIs, and more efficiently manage all your APIs).
description
Anypoint Integration Platform for SOA
• SOAP and REST web services
• Service orchestration and governance
• Legacy system modernization
Anypoint Integration Platform for SaaS
• Connect applications on-premises and the cloud
• Real-time data integration
• Hybrid security
Anypoint Integration Platform for APIs
• API management and developer portal
• API gateway
• Enterprise mobility
Customers
Features:
esb
 Service orchestration
 Federation
 Service mocking
ipaaS
 Sla mgmt
 team Collaboration
 BAM
 Live Flow Activity
 Service mocking
 Business Rules Engine
api
 Web Console
 API Gateway
 API Publisher
 API Store
 API Dev Portal
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
• Ebay
• Ericsson
• Hershey’s
• Honeywell
• Mastercard
• NCR
• Nestle
• Sky
• Tesla
• T-Mobile
• Toyota
• UCSF
Hosting Options
On-premise; iPaaS; SaaS
runtime mode
On app server
adapters url
mulesoft.com/cloud-connectors-full
open source
Yes (with some exclusions)
full list here:
mulesoft.com/customers
Blog blogs.mulesoft.org TWITER @muledev @mulesoft website mulesoft.com
• Amazon
• Barclays

MICROSERVICES
TA K I N G A C L O S E R L OOK
At Amazon, between 100-150
services are accessed to
Mibuild a page.
MONOLITH MICROSERVICES MICROSERVICES
like a fleet of
delivy ucks
100-150
SERVICES
Microservices are just one way to deploy very scalable method), but it's not the of software modularity. If you're building architecture, microservices are just something you have to start Microservices force you to build failure tolerance into your architecture
so that if one service goes down, it doesn't bring the whole
Microservices guide you toward establishing independently
application down (ex. Netix’s Popular on Facebook
feature goes down, but the rest of Netix doesn't go down).
Enterprise integration patterns like timeouts, circuit breakers,
and bulkheads
will help your software avoid cascading failures.
deployable software components that can be hot€xed or rapidly
iterated on without having to redeploy
the entire application. 2
TIGHTLY-COUPLED ARCHITECTURE LOOSELY-COUPLED, FAULT-TOLERANT
DEPENDENCIES
CRASH
ARCHITECTURE
CRASH
Other services and the system as a
whole stay up
osvice
Disadvantages
Microservices use more remote calls, which are more
expensive than in-process calls and don't allow
fine-grained APIs.
Refactoring and moving code between microservices
can be difficult if they're using different technologies.
Distributed applications are always more complicated.
However, most modern web development is
distributed, so many developers are already familiar
with these challenges.
DEPLOY
ONLY THE NEW
UPDATE SERVICE
OLD APP NEW APP
UPDATE
RE-DEPLOY
ENTIRE
APP
START
BENEFITS OF MICROSERVICES
01
02
03

1 app
CHANGE
TWO DEPLOY
x60
CHANGE
ONE
At Etsy, about 150 engineers
deploy a single monolithic
application more than 60
times a day.
MONOLITH
like an 18-wheel
semi-uck
deploy a software component (a
the only way to have the benefits
building a good componentized
just a deployment option, not
with from the beginning.
Microservices allow separate teams to be highly focused on their
service or services since they can modify and deploy the services
Who uses miosvices?
3 Microservices don't need to use the same tools or languages.
at will without a‚ecting other teams often. If these are
crossfunctional
teams with specialization in all areas of the
software lifecycle, then you're already following a lot of good
DevOps practices.
Each team can use the tools and technology they think are
the best €t for the job. Each microservice can have its own
database as well.
4
TIGHTLY-COUPLED MODULAR, ISOLATED COMPONENTS
Microservices are small pieces of functionality that
handle single features of an application or system,
working together over a distributed environment to
create the entire functionality of a software product.
Here are the defining traits of microservices:
• They provide functionality for a small problem domain
• They are built and deployed as separate units with
minimal effect on the entire system
• Each one runs in its own process
• Each one can include its own isolated data storage
• They integrate via well-known interfaces
COMMON ORGANIZATION MODULAR ORGANIZATION
DEV OPS
DBA
DEV, OPS, DBA OPS, DEV, DBA
UI/UX, DEV, DBA
JAVA JAVA
JAVA SQL
svice svice
Clojure
MySQL
Ruby
Postgres
svice
Java
MongoDB
START
MICROSERVICES

BUILD YOUR
BUSINESS FASTER,
IN A SMARTER WAY
Connect information using a
lightweight, flexible, and open platform.
Red Hat JBoss Middleware takes advantage of the
open source development model to provide
enterprise-grade technologies to:
• Unlock information
• Connect applications, services, devices
• Increase efficiencies
• Accelerate innovations
Learn more at www.redhat.com/jboss
Copyright © 2014 Red Hat, Inc. Red Hat, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the Shadowman logo, and JBoss are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc., registered
in the U.S. and other countries. Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.

Accelerate Innovations with a Connected Business
In today’s world, business information is more
distributed than it’s ever been. Organizations
are using new mobile applications to provide
differentiated services to their customers. In addition,
new modern applications are being developed in
the cloud, creating a flourishing new development
ecosystem. The ubiquity and simplicity of mobile
development and cloud services are driving
tremendous innovations that add value, but also
lead to more distributed architectures and hybrid
deployment strategies.
In today’s
world,
business
information
is more
distributed
than it’s
ever been.
Organizations are looking for new systems of
engagement and ways to delight their customers
by providing additional and sustaining value that
differentiates them from competitors. Integration plays a
big role in providing the services necessary to attract these customers.
Integration of the business information distributed in mobile, cloud,
and on-premise applications is required to provide a holistic solution. A
connected business is more prepared to provide exciting new systems
of engagement and is agile enough to make quick changes and adapt
to changing market dynamics.
iPaaS, ESB
JBoss Fuse for xPaaS By Red Hat
Red Hat JBoss middleware is a family of lightweight,
cloud-friendly, enterprise-grade products that include
integration technologies to:
• Unlock business information by connecting all
elements of the business.
• Connect applications, services, devices across
distributed systems.
• Increase efficiencies between all elements of
integration.
Red Hat JBoss integration technologies provide the
agility, flexibility, and capability to connect applications,
integrate multiple systems in a distributed environment,
and accelerate innovations for a connected business.
JBoss technologies facilitate communication between all
your critical business elements, and allow for a distributed ecosystem
that creates a truly connected business.
WRITTEN BY Sameer Parulkar, Product Marketing Manager, Red Hat
Fuse for xPaaS features pattern-based implementation based on Apache Camel, and is packaged with ActiveMQ and over
150 connectors to enable rapid development with robust management.
Features:
 Can build own adapters
 Expose metrics via JMX
 Service orchestration support
 Failover handling
 Federation
 Simulates messaging services
 Web-based deployment console
 Integrated artifact repository
description
JBoss Fuse for xPaaS bring the same
powerful integration capabilities,
available on-premise using the JBoss
Fuse technology, to the cloud. Integration
services on the OpenShift PaaS. JBoss
Fuse for xPaaS enables rapid integration,
quick prototyping and enables integration
solutions to be aligned with CI or DevOps
practices. With Fuse for xPaaS integrate
everything, everywhere!
Customers
• Vodafone
• CenturyLink
• Sabre
• eTrade
• Booz Allen Hamilton
• Sprint
• Dell
• HP
 Automatic recovery of flows
 Real-time event-driven integration
 Transforms flows into web APIs
 Transforms flows into SOA
interfaces
drag-n-drop
 Route creation
 Web Services and REST
application creation
 Data services/Creation
Blog developer.jboss.org TWITER @JBoss website openshift.com/xpaas

The Future of Developing
Integrating Applications
by Markus Eisele
Think about how far software
development has come in just the past five
years. It’s hard to believe that there was a
time when generations of developers spent
months or years setting up infrastructures
and integrating different applications and
backends with each other.
With the widespread adoption of DevOps principles, Platforms
as a Service (PaaS) technologies, and the dawn of the Internet
of Things, we’ll need even more streamlined technologies to
build and integrate the complex, distributed systems of the
future—systems that will be comprised of countless numbers of
consumers and lightweight services.
This article gives you my vision of how building a large project
in the future might look. We begin at the stage
where you’ve spec-ed out the application and
you sit down with your blank laptop. Nothing is
installed yet.
Fast, Reversible Setup
Every time I start a project from scratch, I need
to keep answering the same questions: which
middleware, which IDEs, which frameworks?
You have to be convincing and argue for your
particular technology choices because major
installations or purchases were involved with
those choices. I think tomorrow will be different.
There are already some PaaS vendors that
allow you to leaf through an online repository
of software, like an app store/service store, and
pick the stack that fits your needs. In the future,
this will be even more customizable.
You’ll start with your core development environment and just
pick a profile and a target. That might be your local machine for
now. If you deploy the same profile in the cloud, you will have
an identically configured web-based IDE. You won’t need to
worry so much about where you’re using different components
at the start, because everything can be changed later. For now,
you would pick packaged downloads that come with all the
needed dependencies. For example, your IDE will already have
the source code repository attached and it will be generated
for exactly the type of project you selected. You will also have a
complete DevOps lifecycle in place that is already aware of your
target environment and supports staging changes.
Integrating Containers Dynamic Runtime Configuration
Although the initial setup was easy enough for one developer,
you’ll need more developers on the team as the project
grows. In a lot of these highly-scalable future applications,
microservices will be a popular architecture. Microservices will
encourage organizations to have cross-functional teams with
specialists in each area of the stack, rather
than separating these specialists into siloed
departments. They will also allow developers
to focus on the smallest units of work and build
larger applications that are modular, lightweight,
and resilient to change. Those architectures
are unlikely to ever be deployed on one single
laptop, so at this point you would want to
migrate your requirements.
In future development scenarios, a variety
of PaaS tools will make it easy to switch
containers from a local configuration to the
cloud while maintaining integrations with
other containers, including your IDE. Profiles
and containers will be the landscape of your
projects in the future. The only difference is
Profiles and
containers
will be the
landscape of
your projects
in the future.
that you now rely heavily on a network connection that might
involve latencies and minor wait times. Local containers and
core services will become cloud services.

Messaging (Messaging-as-a-Service) and virtualized data models will
allow a seamless connection to a variety of different systems. This
new integration layer might be called iPaaS, but there’s more to it than
the current definition. By having all systems on a cloud platform that
knows all the relevant meta information, you won’t need to configure
most brokers or endpoints. The iPaaS will know which services run
on which host, and to which other system they should be connected:
the process of scaling, clustering, and failover. Every single switch
in hardware properties like IP addresses and ports will be managed
and transparently applied without the need to redeploy or configure
anything. Whenever your PaaS decides to spin up a new instance, or
parts of your system get moved to another instance, the necessary
configuration changes will happen automatically. This will also be
true for the data (Database-as-a-Service). A profile will include your
deployment and be able to dynamically change relevant bindings.
INTERNET
MOBILE
PLATFORM
mPaaS
LDAP
INTEGRATION
PLATFORM
iPaaS
INTERNAL
SYSTEM A
INTERNAL
SYSTEM B
this would be tightly integrated and able to discover the services
you’ve created.
New devices, servers, and IoT client-devices just need to be registered
with your cloud infrastructure and they’ll be automatically integrated.
Most of the common challenges will be solved by mobile-focused
PaaS solutions with back-end services and AeroGear-like client
libraries. Devices can be registered for push messaging, and even in
a bring-your-own-device organization, there will be suitable security
features. By securing the front-end connections, the mPaaS will allow
you to connect securely to your iPaaS by bridging complex network
topologies and initiating VPN connections to on-premise data sources
and systems.
Once this whole system is up and running, integrated consoles will
allow you to drill down into specific machines, services, users, and
SALESFORCE
DB
MSSQL
DB/2
ORACLE
SAP
push notification
BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT
PLATFORM - bpmPaaS
APPLICATION PLATFORM
PaaS
REST
individual lines of code. All of this has been
done by your team with no help from external
service providers, IT teams, or others not
core to developing the application. Running
the application requires no administration
by you or the team since the infrastructure is
self-monitoring and adaptable to changing
requirements, potentially including the ability to
patch problem areas.
The Next Generation of Development
Hopefully this doesn’t sound too far-fetched.
While there’s still some way to go before
we have all of this, there are already tools
that are shifting our industry in a promising
direction, including projects and companies
like CloudBees, Fabric8, and OpenShift.
Another key component to this utopian future is the typical cloud
billing mechanism: pay for what you need, when you need it. Ideally
developers wouldn’t have to buy development licenses or support
ad infinitum, but instead only for the duration of the development
process (but with options for support and maintenance services). The
customer pays only for what they use. I believe we’re just starting
to see this kind of technology and workflow on the horizon, and I’m
looking forward to when it fully arrives.
WRITTEN BY markus Eisele
Markus Eisele is a Developer Advocate at Red Hat who
has worked with Java EE servers for more than 14 years. He
speaks at conferences all over the world and is the Java
Community leader of the German DOAG e.V. He is also a
Java Champion, former ACE director, and DZone Most Valuable Blogger. His
Twitter handle is @myfear.
QoS Monitoring
As the team of developers continue to work, using their shared code
repository and infrastructure, you’ll want to turn your attention to
the non-functional aspects of the finished application. These include
Quality-of-Service (QoS) requirements, such as average uptime and
peak load requirements. Instead of estimating workloads and usages,
and making intelligent guesses on how to reach your QoS goals,
you’ll just define the metrics and thresholds in your PaaS. The system
will know how to fulfill them automatically by making the necessary
system changes. There is no need for any further human intervention,
except to look at the relevant dashboards to check if the metrics are
being met.
Business Processes, Mobile, the Internet of Things
As your software grows, you may get new categories of users with
varying requirements. To accommodate this it may be easier to
think in terms of workflows or task flows, and your PaaS may even
be able to suggest that you add other tools like a Business Process
Management (BPM) service to your project. Like other cloud add-ons,

The REST API Maturity Model
Roy Fielding derived REST from a series of constraints [1]. Each constraint makes the system more scalable by requiring less
coupling on the client side. Based on these constraints, Leonard Richardson built a maturity model to help developers build
increasingly RESTful (and therefore increasingly web-optimized) systems [2] [3]. This is an adaptation of that maturity model,
explained and expanded with examples.
[1] https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation.pdf [2] http://www.crummy.com/writing/speaking/2008-QCon/act3.html [3] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920028468.do
Level 0: Plain Old
RPC
Essential attributes: One URI, one HTTP
method
Kinda like: Buying food at a drive-thru
Natural language example:
Alice: How much is a Coke?
Bob: $2 cash, $2.25 credit.
Alice: I’ll take one Coke. Here’s $2 cash.
Bob: Here’s your Coke.
HTP example:
POST /drinkService HTTP/1.1
checkPrice brand = “Coca Cola Classic”
size = “20oz”/
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
checkPriceInfo
price = ”2” paymentType = “cash”/
price = “2.25” paymentType = “credit”/
/checkPriceInfo
Level 1: Introducing
resources
Essential attributes: One URI for each
resource
Kinda like: Buying food at a counter
Alice: What drinks do you have?
Bob: Coke for $2, Pepsi for $1.85, Sprite for $2.
Alice: I want a Sprite. Here’s $2.
Bob: Here’s your Sprite.
HTP example:
POST /drinks HTTP/1.1
checkPrice /
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
checkPriceItem
brand = “coke” price = “2”/
brand = “pepsi” price = “1.85”/
brand = “sprite” price = “2”/
/checkPriceItem
POST /drinks/sprite HTTP/1.1
buyItem paymentID =
“2343b23930932bfd90ac4”/
Level 2: Multiple
Verbs
Essential attributes: Multiple URIs, multiple
HTTP methods
Kinda like: Entering a pub for the first time
Alice: I’ve never been to Bob’s Pub before.
What can I do here? I’m legally allowed to
drink.
Bob: You can order a drink for $3, order food
for $6, or play darts for $1.
Alice: I’ll take a set of darts. Here is $1.
Bob: Here is a set of darts.
HTP example:
GET /bobspub/menu?drinkingAge=legal HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
pubOfferings
offering itemid=”43634” item = “drink”
price = “3”/
offering itemid=”43635” item = “food”
price = “6”/
offering itemid=”43637” item = “darts”
price = “1”/
/pubOfferings
POST /bobspub/menu/43637
paymentInfo
accountName = “alice1234”/
amount = “1”/
/paymentInfo
Level 3: Hypermedia
Essential attributes: Resources explain themselves
Kinda like: Transactions at a bank
Alice: How can I deposit my gold?
Bob: You can put gold into your safe deposit box #23438aa40fd3
or convert it to cash and deposit the cash in your checking account
#9909n339.
Alice: Here is $5000 in gold for safe deposit box #23438aa40fd3.
Bob: OK. Your safe deposit box #23438aa40fd3 now has $5000 in gold.
Also, just call me at BankNumber and have your safe deposit box number
(#23438aa40fd3) ready if you want to withdraw anything.
[months later, Ted purchases Bob’s Bank]
Alice: I’d like to withdraw $3000 in gold from safe deposit box
#23438aa40fd3.
Ted: Here’s your gold. Your safe deposit box #23438aa40fd3 now has
$2000 in gold.
HTP example:
GET /accounts/alice1337 HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
accountsList
account name = “safeDepositBox” currentValue = “0”
link rel = “deposit” uri = “/accounts/alice1337/23438aa40fd3”/
link rel = “withdraw” uri = “/accounts/alice1337/23438aa40fd3”/
/account
account name = “checkingAccount” currentValue = “2000”
link rel = “deposit” uri = “/accounts/alice1337/9909n339”/
link rel = “withdraw” uri = “/accounts/alice1337/9909n339”/
/account
/accountsList
POST /accounts/alice1337/23438aa40fd3 HTTP/1.1
transactionInfo
deposit medium = “gold” value = “5000”/
/transactionInfo
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
accountInfo
account name = “safeDepositBox” currentContents = “gold”
currentValue = “5000”
uri = “/accounts/23438aa40fd3”/
/account
link rel = “deposit” uri = “/accounts/23438aa40fd3”/
link rel = “withdraw” uri = “/accounts/23438aa40fd3”/
/accountInfo
POST /accounts/alice1337/23438aa40fd3 HTTP/1.1
transactionInfo
withdraw medium = “gold” value = “3000”/
/transactionInfo

Solutions Directory
Notice to readers: The data in this section is impartial and not influenced by any vendor.
This directory of enterprise integration tools, frameworks, and platforms
provides comprehensive, factual comparison data gathered from
third-party sources and the tool creators’ organizations. Solutions in
the directory are selected based on several impartial criteria including
solution maturity, technical innovativeness, relevance, and data availability.
The solution summaries underneath the product titles are based on the
organization’s opinion of its most distinguishing features. Understand
that not having certain features is a positive thing in some cases. Fewer
unnecessary features sometimes translates into more flexibility and better
performance.
NOTE: The bulk of information gathered about these solutions is not present in these quarter-page profiles.
To view an extended profile of any product, simply go to: dzone.com/research/enterpriseintegration
3scale API Management 3scale
API management capabilities delivered as-a-service. A unique
hybrid cloud architecture that allows best-in-class web
scalability.
 API Gateway
 API Publisher
 API Store
 API Dev Portal
 Web Console
Hosting Options
On-premise; SaaS
Open source
EIRTTW @3scale website 3scale.net
Message queue
Apache ActiveMQ supports many cross-language clients and
protocols, easy-to-use integration patterns, and supports JMS
1.1 and J2EE 1.4.
jms
Version 1.1
No
Features:
API management
type
Library + bindings
Features:
Specialty
Broker (central node)
 tls on ALL messages
Open Source
Yes
 journaling
 tracing support
 disk write support
 All msgs in memory
 All Tasks Async
 thread-to-thread
ActiveMQ Apache
EIRTTW @activemq website activemq.apache.org

Message queue
Amazon SQS Amazon
Amazon SQS moves data between distributed components of
applications without losing messages or requiring components
to be always available.
type
Cloud service
Features:
jms
Non-Java interfaces
supported
Specialty
Low-latency P2P
Open Source
No
 journaling
 tracing support
 All msgs in memory
 All Tasks Async
EIRTTW @awscloud website aws.amazon.com/sqs
API management
Apigee Edge Apigee
Apigee Edge provides tools to manage the digital value chain
from API exposure to API consumption, and to measure the
success of API programs with analytics.
 API Gateway
 API Publisher
 API Store
 API Dev Portal
API management
Anypoint Platform for APIs Mulesoft
A platform for designing great APIs, managing them throughout
their lifecycle, and gleaning business insights through analytics.
 API Gateway
 API Publisher
 API Store
 API Dev Portal
Open source
No
Features:
On-premise; SaaS
EIRTTW @Mulesoft website mulesoft.com
iPaaS
 Web Console
Hosting Options
AtomSphere Dell Boomi
AtomSphere iPaaS enables customers to integrate any
combination of cloud or on-premises applications without
software, appliances, or coding.
Features: Dependencies
 Web Console
Hosting Options
On-premise; SaaS
Open source
Yes
EIRTTW @apigee website apigee.com
N/A
project types
A2A SOA B2B
Data Mgmt API Mgmt
MBaaS
Hosting options
iPaaS; On-premise
Open Source
No
Features:
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
EIRTTW @boomi website boomi.com

Aurea Sonic ESB Aurea Software
Dependencies
Java 1.6
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
Standalone; On app
server
API management
Axway API Management Axway
Axway provides an API management and security platform,
featuring a highly configurable gateway for enterprise-grade
integration and analytics.
Features:  API Gateway
adapters url
aurea.com
open source
No
No
Features:
Hardware appliance;
On-premise; SaaS
BizTalk Server Microsoft
BizTalk server is an integration platform that handles
orchestration, business rules, and has adaptors for protocols
such as REST and JSON.
Features:
A2A SOA B2B BPM
Business Operations Platform Fujitsu
Fujitsu’s Business Operations Platform features SOA
Integration, case management capability, and a collaborative
workspace.
Features:
A2A SOA B2B BPM
Data Mgmt
ESB
Aurea Sonic ESB features a highly distributed dynamic routing
architecture as well as an automated deployment function to facilitate
continuous delivery.
 BPEL
 Federation
 Service Mocking
EIRTTW N/A website aurea.com
 API Publisher
 API Store
 API Dev Portal
Hosting Options
Open source
 Web Console
EIRTTW @axway website axway.com
Dependencies
.NET
project types
Hosting options
On-premise
Open Source
No
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
INT. Suite, iPaaS
EIRTTW @MS_BizTalk website microsoft.com/BizTalk
Dependencies
Java 1.7
project types
Hosting options
iPaaS; On-premise
Open Source
No
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
iPaaS
EIRTTW @interstage website fujitsu.com

API management
CA API Management CA
CA’s API management tool includes in-depth security and
performance options, global API management, and several
deployment options.
 API Gateway
 API Publisher
 API Store
 API Dev Portal
Features:
 Web Console
Hosting Options
Open source
No
Hardware appliance;
On-premise; SaaS
EIRTTW @CAapi website ca.com/api
iPaaS
CloudHub Mulesoft
CloudHub is a global cloud service with load balancing, multi-tenancy,
high-availability, horizontal/vertical scaling, and PCI
compliance.
Dependencies
N/A
project types
A2A SOA B2B
Data Mgmt API Mgmt
Hosting options
iPaaS
Open Source
No
Features:
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
EIRTTW @mulesoft website cloudhub.io
INT. Framework
Camel Apache
Camel empowers developers to define routing and mediation
rules in a variety of domain-specific languages, including a Java-based
fluent API.
current version
2.14
updates
Monthly
DSLs
XML Java Groovy Scala
Kotlin
language ecosystem
Java
Open Source
Yes
Components: http://camel.apache.org/components.html
ESB
Strengths
• Includes several DSLs including Scala
and a Java-based fluent API
• Uses URIs to work with any kind of
transport or messaging models such
as HTTP
• Minimal dependencies allow for easy
embedding in Java applications
• Provides integration with Spring,
Blueprint, and Guice
• Connectors to different enterprise
systems, SaaS, cloud, protocols, and file.
deployment options
Web container; JEE container ;
OSGi environment ; Spring container ;
Spring XD container
Ensemble Intersystems
Ensemble is an integration platform providing SOA, EDA,
and composite service solutions supporting a wide range of
technologies and document formats.
Dependencies
N/A
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
Standalone
Features:
 BPEL
 Federation
 Service Mocking
adapters url
docs.intersystems.com
open source
No
EIRTTW @intersystems website intersystems.com

iPaaS
Flowgear Flowgear
Flowgear features integration prototyping and API-binding, and
connects disparate data sources without VPN.
Dependencies
.NET
project types
A2A SOA B2B
Data Mgmt API Mgmt
MBaaS
Hosting options
iPaaS
Open Source
No
Features:
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
 Business Rules Engine
EIRTTW @flowgear website flowgear.net
iPaaS
HANA Cloud Integration SAP
HANA includes prebuilt integration flows from popular SAP
cloud applications, and SAP HANA-optimized tools to natively
extract and load data.
Dependencies
N/A
project types
A2A SOA BPM
Data mgmt
Hosting options
iPaaS
Open Source
No
Features:
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
EIRTTW @SAPTechnology website sap.com
iPaaS
Elastic Integration Platform SnapLogic
Snaplogic provides a multi-tenant cloud service, with EAI and
ETL for Big Data integration in a single platform.
Dependencies
N/A
project types
A2A SOA
Data Mgmt API Mgmt
Hosting options
iPaaS
Open Source
No
Features:
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
TWITER @snaplogic
Int. Suite, iPaaS
WEBSITE snaplogic.com
Fujitsu RunMyProcess Fujitsu
RunMyProcess features a drag-and-drop interface to create
business applications, bundled with a database and version
control systems as well as an app server and repository.
Dependencies
N/A
project types
A2A SOA B2B BPM
Data Mgmt API Mgmt
MBaaS
Hosting options
iPaaS
Open Source
No
Features:
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
EIRTTW @runmyprocess website runmyprocess.com

Message queue
HornetQ Red Hat
HornetQ is message-oriented middleware designed to build
multi-protocol, embeddable, clustered, and asynchronous
messaging systems.
type
Library + bindings
jms
Version 2.0
Specialty
Open Source
Yes
EIRTTW @hornetq website hornetq.jboss.org
Message queue
IronMQ Iron.io
Features:
 journaling
 tracing support
 All Tasks Async
IronMQ is a highly available HTTP REST-based message
queue with persistence, one-time delivery, push, poll, and long-polling.
type
Standalone software
Features:
jms
Non-Java interfaces
supported
Specialty
Open Source
No
 journaling
 tracing support
 All Tasks Async
 thread-to-thread
EIRTTW @getiron website iron.io/mq
Message queue
IBM MQ Advanced IBM
IBM MQ Advanced features a wide set of supported platform
configurations, programming interfaces, and languages.
type
Standalone software
jms
Version 2.0
Specialty
Open Source
No
EIRTTW @IBMmessaging website ibm.com
ESB
Features:
 journaling
 tracing support
 All Tasks Async
JBoss Fuse Red Hat
Lightweight JBoss Fuse can be deployed in several different
configurations, and enables businesses to integrate
everything, everywhere.
Dependencies
Java 1.7
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
On app server
Features:
 BPEL
 Federation
 Web Deploy Console
 Service Mocking
adapters url
access.redhat.com/documentation
open source
Yes
EIRTTW @jboss website jboss.org/products/fuse

JBoss Fuse for xPaaS Red Hat
JBoss Fuse for xPaaS extends the pattern-based integration
capabilities on OpenShift PaaS, enabling rapid integration,
quick prototyping, and improved developer productivity.
Features:
A2A SOA B2B
Mashery API Management Intel
Mashery is a SaaS-based API Management solution with a
single user console to scale, monitor, and distribute APIs.
 API Gateway
 API Publisher
 API Store
 API Dev Portal
 Web Console
 3rd Party Gateways
Hosting Options
Open source
EIRTTW @mashery website mashery.com
LegaSuite Integration Rocket Software
LegaSuite Integration provides web services for applications
running on IBM z, IBM i, UNIX, or Windows server.
A2A SOA B2B BPM
Data Mgmt API Mgmt
MBaaS
ESB
Features:
Mule ESB Mulesoft
Mule ESB is a solution for SOA, SaaS, and APIs, allowing
developers to connect what they need to on-premises or in
the cloud.
Features:
No
On-premise; SaaS
API management
Features: Dependencies
Java 1.7
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
Standalone; On app
server
adapters url
mulesoft.com/cloud-connectors-full
open source
Yes
 BPEL
 Federation
 Service Mocking
EIRTTW @Mulesoft website mulesoft.com
Dependencies
N/A
project types
Hosting options
iPaaS
Open Source
Yes
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
iPaaS
EIRTTW @Jboss website openshift.com
Dependencies
Java 1.7
project types
Hosting options
On-premise; iPaaS
Open Source
No
 Sla mgmt
 team Collab
 BAM
 Service mocking
INT. Suite, iPaaS
EIRTTW @Rocket website rocketsoftware.com

Int. Framework
NServiceBus
NServiceBus is a popular integration framework for the .NET
ecosystem that uses a WCF-remote-procedure-call type of API.
current version
5.0.1
updates
Weekly
DSLs
None
language ecosystem
.NET
Open Source
Yes
COMPONENTS: http://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/containers
Message queue
Strengths
• Has capabilities usually associated
with business process engines
• Monitoring includes a unique SLA
violation countdown metric
• Largest community for a .NET
integration framework
deployment options
Web container
RabbitMQ Pivotal
Pivotal RabbitMQ is an open source asynchronous message
server designed for the cloud, with simple adoption and
deployment, several language clients, and a small footprint.
type
Standalone software
Features:
jms
Version 1.1
Specialty
Open Source
Yes
 journaling
 tracing support
 All Tasks Async
EIRTTW @Pivotal website pivotal.io
ESB
Neuron ESB Neudesic
Neuron ESB is an application integration and web service
platform built entirely on Microsoft .NET to provide real-time
consistent messaging services.
Dependencies
.NET
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
Standalone; On app
server
open source
No
Features:
EIRTTW @neuronESB website neuronesb.com
ESB
 BPEL
 Federation
 Service Mocking
adapters url
neuronesb.com
Oracle Service Bus Oracle
OSB transforms complex architectures into agile networks by
connecting, virtualizing, and managing interactions between
services and apps.
Dependencies
Java
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
Standalone; On app
server
Features:
 BPEL
 Failover Handling
 Federation
 Service Mocking
adapters url
N/A
open source
No
EIRTTW @oracle website oracle.com

SAP API Management SAP
SAP’s API Management provides a comprehensive infrastructure
for API creation, security, and management as well as back-end
services for developing client apps.
 API Gateway
 API Publisher
 API Store
 API Dev Portal
 Web Console
Hosting Options
Open source
EIRTTW @SAP website sap.com
Talend ESB Talend
Talend’s ESB product simplifies the connection, mediation, and
management of services and applications.
Int. Framework
Spring Integration Pivotal
Spring Integration is a lightweight integration framework
that provides an alternative to ESBs or integration suites that
integrates both systems and components.
current version
4
updates
Semi-annually
DSLs
XML Java Groovy Scala
language ecosystem
Java
Strengths
• Canonical implementation of
Enterprise Integration Patterns
• Spring XD is an available option to
unify Spring Integration, Batch, and
Data
• Spring XD extends Spring
Integration by assembling
component modules into a stream
• Provides control over message
flow using MessageChannels as first
class elements
deployment options
Web container; JEE container ; Spring
container; Spring XD container
Open Source
Yes
Components: http://docs.spring.io/spring-integration/docs/
TIBCO EMS TIBCO
TIBCO EMS is standards-based messaging middleware that
simplifies and accelerates integration and management of data
distribution.
Features: type
jms
Version 1.1
No
On-premise
API management
Features:
ESB
Dependencies
Java
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
Standalone; On app
server
adapters url
talendforge.org/components/
open source
Yes
 BPEL
 Federation
 Service Mocking
EIRTTW @talend website talend.com/products/esb
Library + bindings
Features:
Specialty
Low-latency P2P
Open Source
No
 journaling
 tracing support
 All Tasks Async
Message queue
EIRTTW @tibco website tibco.com

ESB
UltraESB AdroitLogic
UltraESB uses non-blocking IO with ZeroCopy/DMA support of
the hardware and OS, and a RAM disk instead of heap memory
to reduce garbage collection overhead.
Dependencies
Java 1.6
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
Standalone; On app
server
open source
Yes
API management, Suite
WebMethods SoftwareAG
SoftwareAG provides an end-to-end integrated API
management toolchain, and supports the API management
lifecycle with additional SoftwareAG products.
Features:  API Gateway
EIRTTW @AdroitLogic website adroitlogic.org
ESB
 BPEL
 Federation
 Service Mocking
adapters url
docs.adroitlogic.org
WSO2 ESB WSO2
WSO2 ESB operates at high performance and has a wide
range of Integration capabilities and connectors, including
support for EIPs.
Dependencies
Java
drag-n-drop
 Route Creation
 Web Services
 Data Services
runtime mode
Standalone
Features:
 BPEL
 Federation
 Service Mocking
adapters url
storepreview.wso2.com/store/
open source
Yes
EIRTTW @wso2 website wso2.com
 API Publisher
 API Store
 API Dev Portal
Features:
 Web Console
Hosting Options
Open source
No
On-premise
EIRTTW @SAG_API_Mgt website softwareag.com
Message queue
ZeroMQ iMatix
ZeroMQ is a lightweight toolkit for building distributed systems
without needing a central broker, and is optimized for high
speed and high volume.
type
Library + bindings
Features:
jms
Non-Java interfaces
supported
Specialty
Low-latency P2P
 tls on ALL messages
Open Source
Yes
 journaling
 tracing support
 disk write support
 All Tasks Async
EIRTTW @hintjens website zeromq.org

A
API Management Platform: Middleware
used to oversee the process of publishing,
promoting, and configuring APIs in a secure,
scalable environment; platforms usually include
tools for automation, documentation, versioning, and
monitoring.
Application Programming Interface
(API): A software interface that allows users to
configure and interact with other programs, usually
by calling from a list of functions.
B
Business Process Management (BPM):
A workflow management strategy used to monitor
business performance indicators such as revenue,
ROI, overhead, and operational costs.
D
Domain-Driven Design (DDD): A software
design philosophy that bases the core logic and
architecture of software systems on the model of the
domain (e.g. banking, health care).
E
Enterprise Application Integration
(EAI): A label for the tools, methods, and services
used to integrate software applications and hardware
systems across an enterprise.
Enterprise Integration (EI): A field that
focuses on interoperable communication between
systems and services in an enterprise architecture; it
includes topics such as electronic data interchange,
integration patterns, web services, governance, and
distributed computing.
Enterprise Integration Patterns (EIP):
A growing series of reusable architectural designs
for software integration. Frameworks such as
Apache Camel and Spring Integration are designed
around these patterns, which are largely outlined on
EnterpriseIntegrationPatterns.com.
Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB): A server-side
component architecture for modular construction of
distributed enterprise applications; one of several
APIs for Java Enterprise Edition.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB): A utility that
combines a messaging system with middleware to
provide comprehensive communication services for
software applications.
Event-Driven Architecture (EDA): A software
architecture pattern that orchestrates behavior
around the production, detection, and consumption
of events.
Extract, Transform and Load (ETL): A
process for integrating large data batches through
tools that copy data from various sources, make
necessary translations, and send it to the final target.
H
Hypermedia as the Engine of
Application State (HATEOAS): A principle
of REST application architecture where clients interact
with a network application entirely through hypermedia
provided by application servers.
I
Integration Platform-as-a-Service
(iPaaS): A set of cloud-based software tools that
govern the interactions between cloud and on-premises
applications, processes, services, and data.
Interface Definition Language (IDL):
A specification language used to describe a software
component’s interface in a language-agnostic way,
enabling communication between software components
that are written in different programming languages.
J
Java Management Extensions (JMX):
A Java technology that provides lightweight
management extensions to Java-based applications
and interfaces.
Java Message Service (JMS): An API that
functions as message-oriented middleware designed
for the exchange of asynchronous messages
between different Java-based clients.
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON):
An open standard data exchange format based on
a JavaScript syntax subset that is text-based and
lightweight.
M
Message Broker: A centralized messaging
program that translates and routes message. This is
the basis of the hub and spoke messaging topology.
Message-Driven Processing: A computer
model where clients send a service request to a
program that acts as a request broker for handling
messages from many clients and servers.
Message Exchange Pattern (MEP): The
type of messages required by a communication
protocol; the two major MEPs are request-response
(HTTP) and one-way (UDP).
Message Gateway: An application component
that contains messaging-specific code and separates
it from the rest of the application.
Messaging-Oriented Middleware (MOM):
A layer of software or hardware that sends and
receives messages between distributed systems.
Message Queue: A software component used
for communication between processes/threads that
harnesses asynchronous communication protocols.
Microservices Architecture: A system or
application consisting of small, lightweight services that
each perform a single business feature. The services
are independently deployable and communicate with
each other through a well- defined interface.
Middleware: A software layer between the
application and operating system that provides
uniform, high-level interfaces to manage services
between distributed systems; this includes integration
middleware, which refers to middleware used
specifically for integration.
O
OAuth: A common open standard for authorization.
Open Source Gateway Interface (OSGi):
A Java framework for developing and deploying
modular programs and libraries.
R
Remote Procedure Call (RPC): An inter-process
communication that causes a subroutine or procedure
in another address space to execute without needing to
write any explicit code for that interaction.
Representational State Transfer
(REST): A distributed, stateless architecture that
uses web protocols and involves client/server
interactions built around a transfer of resources.
RESTful API: An application programming interface
that is said to meet the principles of representational
state transfer.
S
Security Assertion Markup Language
(SAML): An XML-based language protocol for
handling authentication and authorization in a
network or for web development.
Service Component Architecture (SCA): A
group of specifications intended for the development
of applications based on service-oriented architecture.
Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA):
An architecture style that uses discrete software
services (each with one clearly defined business task)
with well-defined, loosely-coupled interfaces that
are orchestrated to work as a complete system by
sharing functionality.
Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP):
A protocol for implementing web services that feature
guidelines for communicating between web programs.
W
Web Service: A function that can be accessed
over the web in a standardized way using APIs that are
accessed via HTTP and executed on a remote system.
Web Services Description Language
(WSDL): An XML-based language that describes
the functionality of a web service, and is necessary for
communication with distributed systems.
Web Services Security (WS): A specification
that determines how security measures are
implemented in web services and SOAP-based
messages.
glossary of terms

Monetize the Value of Data with
CA API Management
Connect every mobile app, cloud service, developer and device
SaaS
©2014 CA
On-premises
Hybrid
Start your free trial today: http://api.co/DzoneAPI

Dzr guide to_enterprise_integration

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Dzr guide to_enterprise_integration (20)

More from Hamed Hatami (9)

Recently uploaded (20)

Dzr guide to_enterprise_integration