<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Enterprise-Integration on IT Comparison</title><link>https://comparison.metacog.co.kr/tags/enterprise-integration/</link><description>Recent content in Enterprise-Integration on IT Comparison</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 05:22:46 +0900</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://comparison.metacog.co.kr/tags/enterprise-integration/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Broker Topology vs Mediator Topology: Decentralized vs Centralized Event Flow</title><link>https://comparison.metacog.co.kr/posts/2026-08-04-broker-topology-vs-mediator-topology-decentralized-vs-centra/</link><pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 05:22:46 +0900</pubDate><guid>https://comparison.metacog.co.kr/posts/2026-08-04-broker-topology-vs-mediator-topology-decentralized-vs-centra/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="overview"&gt;Overview&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Broker and mediator topology are the two core styles for structuring event-driven architectures, differing in who controls the flow of events between components. In a &lt;strong class="kw"&gt;broker topology&lt;/strong&gt;, events flow directly between producers and consumers through a distributed broker with no central authority, while a &lt;strong class="kw"&gt;mediator topology&lt;/strong&gt; routes every event through a central orchestrator that dictates the sequence of steps. The choice determines how easily the system scales versus how easily complex, stateful workflows can be managed and debugged.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>