Frankly speaking, I don’t consider myself a “contrarian” regarding CEP and EPTS. I am simply not a corporate marketing person, living by quarterly earnings reports, and can live by principles, not by corporate greed. I am sad to say that I don’t support the EPTS use case study because of how it is “mismanaged” (in my opinion). EPTS is not a “technical society” . EPTS is mostly a group of corporate marketing folks, crafting messages that are, mostly, technically inaccurate.
Most of the core EPTS leadership, while well intended, have little to no practical experience in operational event processing solutions (solving complex event processing problems).
I consider the “use case” exercise of EPTS a type of mis-information dissemination exercise, designed to confirm the “marketeers view” versus the correctly technical view related to processing complex events.
Case-in-point, consider all the “steam processing” acting as transaction engines in financial services; this has nothing (absolutely nothing) to do with forwarding the state of the art of processing complex events (events as electronic messages).
Sorry for the rant, but the “EPTS Leadership” has driven me away from their mission because they are simply concerned about “product marketing”, so EPTS should be called EPSG (Event Processing Sales Group).
That is not my interest area (sales and marketing software products), especially since I don’t work for a software company.
Actually, I have a number of complex event processing problems I am working with, but I do most of the coding in PHP, since the “CEP engines” are basically “fluff in a box”.
On the other hand, there are no true CEP use cases for most of the self-styled CEP products in the market today; these products are not technically advanced enough to detect complex events, only simple ones. If they were useful, I would be using them!