Apache Camel vs elastic.io Integration Platform

• The Java DSP is one of the primary reasons we chose Camel over Spring Integration's XML-based route definitions. It provides compile-time checking of syntax with auto-complete in an IDE (Eclipse, etc).
• The component documentation on the website is phenomenal.
• Error handling mechanisms are robust and easy to use and set up. Default settings are great and intuitive.
• The ability to define distinct contexts within the same application and define context-wide, context-specific error handling is great as well.

Read full review

• Streamlining data directly between relevant ES plugins
• Automating ES configuration management
• Batching data relays

Read full review

• Some of the documentation is a little sparse. In particular, its TCP-based routes use an underlying Netty server, and the interactions between Netty's decoder capabilities and Apache Camel's routing/handler capabilities can be a little muddy at times. In general it is clear which routes and endpoints are the more frequently used and which haven't been given as much attention.

Read full review

• Paid solutions are always challenging when the tool itself is free
• Available training for this paid solution

Read full review

• There was certainly a positive impact in terms of code maintainability and ease of implementing new messaging pipelines, however, it's a little difficult to quantify.

Read full review

• If your datasets are diverse and could use automation, this will bring good ROI for time spent

Read full review