Epilogue on CEP Maturity

In On the Maturity of Complex Event Processing, the author concludes:

“I think [… the. …] comment at the end of [… the. …] post “we shouldn’t feel compelled to thwart that growth with a claim that the products are not ‘mature’ when they actually are in a lot of ways” is quite revealing. The fact that such a level of debate about CEP’s maturity is taking place, and the fact that [… someone …] is concerned that the debate might stifle growth, is itself indicative of an immature market segment in my opinion.”

This quote is compelling.  When vendors disagree with the direction and tone a debate is going and they call to end the debate, labelling the discussion “a distraction” – it tends to prove the premise of the original post Deciphering the Myths Around Complex Event Processing  by Ivy Schmerken;  the CEP market, both exciting and promising, is today, mostly immature and brittle. 

For more conclusive evidence, I turn our readers attention to this post, An Overture to the 2007 CEP Blog Awards,  That analysis was based, in part, on CEP/EP Reference Customers 2005-2007 where we documented 18 public “CEP reference clients” in 2007 (25 for the entire period 2005 – 2007).

Twenty five public reference clients over a three year period with 18 last year (2007) do not demonstrate a mature market or technology domain.

————————

Footnote:

Here were the results of the CEP/EP Reference Customers Survey for 2005-2007:

Apama	5
TIBCO	5
StreamBase	4
AptSoft  (purchased by IBM)	4
Coral8	2
Aleri	2
Agent Logic	1
BEA	1
Total CEP/EP Reference Customers (2005-2007)	25

~~~

Looking only at 2007, the total CEP/EP reference customers available in the public domain were as follows:

~~~

Apama	4
StreamBase	4
TIBCO	2
AptSoft (purchased by IBM)	2
Coral8	2
Aleri	2
Agent Logic	1
BEA	1
Total CEP/EP Reference Customers (2007)	18