Apache Camel vs. webMethods Trading Network

Message brokering across different systems, with transactionality and the ability to have fine tuned control over what happens using Java (or other languages), instead of a heavy, proprietary languages. One situation that it doesn't fit very well (as far as I have experienced) is when your workflow requires significant data mapping. While possible when using Java tooling, some other visual data mapping tools in other integration frameworks are easier to work with.

Incentivized

webMethods Trading Networks is an excellent choice for a business-to-business (B2B) gateway platform, for sending and receiving messages to/from external trading partner organizations. It excels at making it easy to define new interfaces and provides robust mechanisms for ensuring successful message delivery and processing through automatic retries. We also use it successfully for all our application-to-application (A2A) integration, which many would believe is beyond the scope of what webMethods Trading Network is good for; however, we have made it work and it has been very successful in our organization. I would not recommend using webMethods Trading Network for integration that requires low-latency or high-bandwidth data transfers. It is much better suited to shipping reasonable sized XML or JSON or flat file messages (less than 100 mb) around in situations that do not need sub-second latency. If you have low-latency or high-bandwidth needs, you should use a product more focussed on eventing, such as Kafka, for example.

Incentivized

• Camel has an easy learning curve. It is fairly well documented and there are about 5-6 books on Camel.
• There is a large user group and blogs devoted to all things Camel and the developers of Camel provide quick answers and have also been very quick to patch Camel, when bugs are reported.
• Camel integrates well with well known frameworks like Spring, and other middleware products like Apache Karaf and Servicemix.
• There are over 150 components for the Camel framework that help integrate with diverse software platforms.
• Camel is also good for creating microservices.

Incentivized

• Document tracking
• Efficient partner management
• Set up trading partners with connectivity information

Incentivized

• didn't work well when our developers tried to transform heavy data sets
• Apache Camel's whole logic is based on java so team needs to have a great skill set in java
• if there are a handful of workflows then Apache Camel's full potential can't be realized

Incentivized

• Vendor is slow to add new features
• Performance scales with underlying database performance
• Use of My webMethods to administrate trading networks is clunky and slow

Incentivized

If you are looking for a Java-based open source low cost equivalent to webMethods or Azure Logic Apps, Apache Camel is an excellent choice as it is mature and widely deployed, and included in many vendored Java application servers too such as Redhat JBoss EAP. Apache Camel is lacking on the GUI tooling side compared to commercial products such as webMethods or Azure Logic Apps.

Incentivized

Ease of use and robustness of the product.

Incentivized

• Very fast time to market in that so many components are available to use immediately.
• Error handling mechanisms and patterns of practice are robust and easy to use which in turn has made our application more robust from the start, so fewer bugs.
• However, testing and debugging routes is more challenging than working is standard Java so that takes more time (less time than writing the components from scratch).
• Most people don't know Camel coming in and many junior developers find it overwhelming and are not enthusiastic to learn it. So finding people that want to develop/maintain it is a challenge.

Incentivized

• Improved time to market for new A2A and B2B interfaces
• Ability to support modern standards with B2B partners
• Improved supportability and robustness when compared to the previous bespoke custom solution it replaced

Incentivized