Likelihood to Recommend 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.
Read full review It's free! No argument can win a fight with that! And it's the only reason I gave it a 5. If you have no money to spend, and a simple environment you'll have a nice product. But free does come with a price. After 5 years we're still struggling with ports, and analytics (it just won't work without any errors caused by some configuration somewhere). An API Manager should work out of the box. The only configuration expertise that any developer wants to invest in, is the configuration of API's. Not the product itself... Anyone who've seen the training material, just for installing this thing will agree that this is not the way to go. Of all the API Managers out there (we've tried 4), WSO2 is the only one were you need to know how this dragon of a java application works internally. Did I already mention the humongous amount of config files?
Read full review Pros 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. Read full review Authentication based on OAuth 2.0 and HTTP Basic Authentication. Rate Limiting applied at different levels like Subscriber, API, Resource and Backend. Monitoring by exporting the metrics in Prometheus and traces in Jaeger. Mediation to perform transformation, orchestration etc. Read full review Cons 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 Read full review Better QA testing prior to releases rollout Better support needed Read full review Alternatives Considered 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 .
Read full review Providing better capabilities comparing the overall API lifecycle management, especially the availability of API Integration layer and a strong identity layer of their own which provides an end-to-end API ecosystem that would be advantageous in terms of a large software development initiative.
Read full review Return on Investment 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. Read full review We've moved away from legacy SOAP services where nobody knew what services was used by who. WSO2 eliminated at least 90% of time spend on any service. Creating API's (or actually creating the API Management layer...) is so simple that new developers can get away with it in no time. Again, real time gainer. Since creating API's is so simple, developers are very fast in adopting a kind of "Domain thinking". In comparison with Azure API Manager: Azure does not demand knowledge of "how" the product works, but it's definitely more difficult to get an API up and running in Azure. And for some reason, azure does not promote clean domain driven architecture. Domain Driven architecture is the greatest time saver strategy possible. And WSO2 fits nicely in there. Read full review ScreenShots