However, I should briefly clarify Paul’s note that “blackboard systems historically used a single memory model (i.e. multiple threads or processes using a single machine’s memory model)“.

In fact, there were many blackboard systems, some more than a decade old, that used a distributed memory data-model. What I think Paul meant to say, and my apologies to Paul for being so literal, is that “blackboard systems originally used a single memory model (i.e. multiple threads or processes using a single machine’s memory model)”

John McManus, former CTO of NASA, wrote an excellent PhD dissertation in 1992, Design and Analysis Techniques for Concurrent Blackboard Systems. John’s thesis, now more than 16 years old, examined many details of concurrent blackboards where memory is distributed. For example, refer to Figure 2.3. Distributed Blackboard System with Distributed Blackboard Data Structure, page 36 of John’s dissertation.

Quoting directly from page 37 of John’s disseration;

Rice, Aiello and Nii [20] present several options for gaining speedups in a distributed blackboard system.

• 1) Eliminate the centralized scheduling mechanism
• 2) Optimize system design for a distributed memory, message-passing hardware
• 3) Distribute the data across the blackboard to reduce hotspots

Quoting further from the same page;

Poligon [21] is based on a distributed memory hardware model when each processor is viewed as a blackboard node. They define a blackboard node as follows: “a blackboard node is a process on a processor, surrounded by a collection of processors able to service its requests to execute rules.” [22] The implicit assumption in this definition is that all knowledge sources are rule–based systems. This assumption may severely limit the performance of systems implemented using Poligon, and limits the types of problems it is suited to address.

In Blackboards for Complex Event Processing, Paul concludes,

“One suspects the blackboard systems domain and terminology is overdue some updates thanks to developments in the Complex Event Processing space.”

If you look at the historical literature, I would say that the following restatement is more accurate:

“The CEP domain and terminology is overdue some updates because folks working in CEP did not reference or incorporate the advanced event processing prior art in a number of very important areas, blackboard systems being only one.”

On the other hand, commercial off-the-shelf rule-processing technology such as TIBCO’s BusinessEvents (BE), advances the ability to economically implement myriad complex problems that blackboard systems are designed to address.

First of all, we have not read anyone saying that CEP is “mere hype” as Paul Vincent has distorted the discussion.  What people have have said is that CEP is overhyped. There is a huge difference in “Mere Hype” (Paul Vincent’s misinformation) and “Overhyped”.  

In addition, Paul goes a step further and calls the entire discussion, one he did not participate in, ”over-discussed (but ultimately uninteresting)” as a sideline observer who has offered nothing to the dialog.  TIBCO’s customers have not released a CEP announcement in a very long time and they are not contributing to the critical technical discussions.

Instead of sniping at community discussions on the blogosphere,  as a lead-in for a blog post, why not offer the details of a TIBCO customer use case?  Also, instead of misquoting the community discussions, why not be accurate, not misleading and condescending?     How about getting into the details of TIBCO Event Processing Language?  Maybe discussing the plans, if any, for the integration of Insightful and Spotfire with BusinessEvents?  

I greatly admire TIBCO and their technology, but Paul’s post CEP: hype, or the next best thing since sliced bread? is both misleading and inaccurate. We expect more out of the TIBCO bloggers, for example, a strong public customer reference detailing a CEP use case.   Something we have not seen on the TIBCO blog.

PS:  A quick Google search reveals that the only person on the net calling CEP “Mere Hype” is Paul Vincent.

In Q&A from BCS SPA meeting on CEP,  friend and colleague Paul Vincent says:

 ”AFAIK there are no current military systems (as opposed to government intelligence systems) using Commercial Off The Shelf CEP systems, although I recall one commercial product being developed with US military money (your tax $ at work, etc etc).”

Actually, Paul’s statement is slightly misleading.   Companies like StreamBase and AgentLogic have their roots in supporting the military.  In addition, IBM has a number of event processing related solutions in the military.   (There are also others, we suspect.)

It is true, however, that current generation COTS CEP engines do not have the advanced event processing capabilities required for most CEP applications  in the military; but as CEP engines advance, this should change.

I returned from being locked out of the world’s technology blogs by the Chinese government, insuring a harmonious society, of course  ; only to tune back in and read this interesting post by TIBCO’s business-rules evangelist, Paul Vincent, Calling all (insert CEP vendor name here) professionals!

Curious, I followed Paul’s link and found no references, or job openings, at TIBCO for CEP or BusinessEvents related positions.  

Paul, where are the TIBCO CEP related jobs (the beef!)?

Inquiring minds want to know!