"weston.price(a)jboss.com" wrote : anonymous wrote : | | Weston, I think we can all agree that NIH is bad. However, so is believing that everything that has gone before is necessarily the right way of doing things. | | | | Agreed. My point wasn't to assert that it's necessarily correct, or the right way. It was merely to put into play the idea that these things might be worth evaluating, that's it. | Absolutely. Even if existing implementations might not look suitable to a "loosely coupled pattern" (just using that as an example), it may be possible to leverage them (e.g., wrap them, or whatever), such that you only end up writing 10% new code. I'd much prefer that to us writing 90% new code. anonymous wrote : | Unfortunately, on the flip side of NIH, we also have the exact opposite issue: incorporating technologies that are not only not a good fit, but don't actually solve the initial problem that they were ostensibly designed to address. | Yes, I agree with you again. One thing we have to remember with JBossESB is that a lot of the code comes from the Rosetta acquisition and was implemented over 3 years ago. So for example I'm not sure where JBoss JCA was in those days ;-) But purely from a management side of things, if there's something similar/exactly the same elsewhere in JEMS (or other OSS communities), we should look at its applicability. I'd rather you had the headache of support than me! View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4029113#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...