Talk:Event stream processing

Would love feedback on this page. - Mark

Products

this section has been removed. Listing of selected companies can be seen as representing bias or endorsing more weight on a few "selected' companies. It's probably best to continue keeping sections like this out of the article in order to maintain Wikipedia's Neutral point of view Hu12 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See response on Talk:Complex Event Processing. I believe the list or something like it should stay. Ronnotel 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copy from Talk:Complex Event Processing. As policy states, Wikipedia is not a repository for lists, directories or Advocacy of commercial products and/or websites. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias, this applies not only to article text, but to companies, products, external links, and any other material as well. Although it may have been helpful in the past, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of companies, products or external links. Hu12 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed

It's not clear what the difference is between this and Complex Event Processing. Unless I'm missing something, seems like we can save some pixels. Ronnotel 21:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, however I propose that Event Stream Processing is a subset of Complex Event Processing, so this should not suggest merge but mapping? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.229.179 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 24 November 2006.

Sounds fine. (BTW, kindly sign your posts - use four ~'s) Ronnotel 04:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe CEP and ESP are closely related and that the articles should be merged, but they are industry terms, and the industry uses both terms, and it is not clear (or agreed) what exactly the difference is between the two terms. Equally, it is not agreed if one is a subset of the other as they both appear to be capable of solving the same problems - just different models/implementations of the same problem resulting in similar solutions. If the articles are merged, both terms will (most likely) apply to the article equally. Maybe it's possible to create a 3rd page calles "CEP/ESP" and have the other terms link to the new page?

CEP and ESP should not be merged. 24.255.127.4 07:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a vote, then great - we'd know your position. But it's a discussion. Would you care to elaborate on why you believe CEP and ESP should not be merged? Thank you. Bardcom 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be much easier to compare the two if they were merged. As it is, you have to go back and forth to try to see what's different about them. My $0.02. Ronnotel 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]