| RE: [cosmos-dev] Performance positioning of the COSMOS M2 vis-a-visP2Pintegrations |
|
Jimmy,
We always expected that a consumer who needs to exchange
large volumes of data would use a direct connection between the source and
the consumer. That doesn't mean that they need to reinvent all of the
wheels that are required to discover, configure, query, and manage
each other. It just means that they would still need to open a
private connection for the purpose of exchanging bulk data after they have
discovered each other and negotiated their protocols and other details.
Likewise, a web service query through a COSMOS data manager that is located
close to the management database may perform much better than a direct
remote query directly to that database by reducing the volume of transmitted
data.
I don't think that the issue is additional layers, it would
be additional layers that add overhead without adding value.
Regards,
Don
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.
From: cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mohsin,
Jimmy
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:19 AM To: Cosmos Dev Cc: Craddock, Chris; Hayes, Ian Subject: RE: [cosmos-dev] Performance positioning of the COSMOS M2 vis-a-visP2Pintegrations Sorry for a type below… replace
“entails” with “entail”… Thanks, Jimmy
Mohsin Cell
+1-609-635-1703 From:
cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mohsin, Jimmy All, On more than one occasion, some of the reviewers of the
COSMOS presentations have put the following questions on the table; and this
usually happens when we describe the data manager…. “But you just added TWO layers to my data-integration problem
that I solved using point-to-point integration… Specifically, you are now asking
me to add Data Managers to BOTH of the products I just integrated via a P2P
approach?” Obviously, this view has its flaws, i.e. it fails to
recognize that COSMOS offers a standards-based data integration building blocks
/ tools / approaches that could one day become the lingua franca for such
integrations in this business space… Eventually, COSMOS could alleviate
the need for MANY (but definitely NOT ALL) point-to-point
integrations. Thus, there will ALWAYS be need for SOME point to point
integrations, where blindingly fast and massive amounts of data exchange are key
criteria. Now the question: do we need to start to put some thresholds
/ guidelines in place that will enable adopters to determine if COSMOS is a
viable solution for them? These thresholds or guidelines or whatever could
be used by a potential adopter to determine if they should use a COSMOS-based
approach or go for a P2P integration. Or do we say that, “COSMOS will
impose minimal overhead due to its Data Managers and associated infrastructure,
and should be considered for ALL data centric integrations; and P2P integrations
must only be attempted as a last resort?” Or in other words, how brave should we be J in positioning our product?
Interestingly, this question comes up VERY frequently from data centric
audiences, who are our primary adopter target… Seems the data folks are
very much data performance focused, however, there are MANY use cases that do
not entails large amounts of data transfer between
products. Thoughts / Feedback
/ Comments?, Jimmy
Mohsin Cell
+1-609-635-1703 |