Red Hat JBoss SOA Platform drives business execution, responsiveness, and flexibility in an open platform. It delivers what the vendor describes as an easy-to-consume service-oriented architecture (SOA) integration suite that lets users build, deploy, integrate, and orchestrate applications and services.
N/A
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
OpenShift is Red Hat's Cloud Computing Platform as a Service (PaaS) offering. OpenShift is an application platform in the cloud where application developers and teams can build, test, deploy, and run their applications.
Oracle SOA Suite (Oracle BPM + Oracle BPEL + other components) and IBM WebSphere middleware is most costly and suited if you are already using applications and other middleware components from these vendors. Mulesoft (Salesforce Mule ESB) is best when you need deep integration …
Red Hat maintains a consistent user interface across their products, and their feature sets facilitate easy and rapid adoption. Configuration as code is the optimal approach for all of them, and they all provide a level of command-line access that ensures teams can work in the …
OCP and OpenShift Virtualization are better for a code based infrastructure our organization is attempting to move towards shortly. VMware has also been acquired which has added instability with their future. We are planning to move all VMware workloads to OpenShift …
I don't have as much experience with the other two, I have heard of them and know they are container management systems. I have the most experience with Red Hat OpenShift.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Red Hat Data Grid, Red Hat Integration, Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform
As a specialized partner in container platform Red Hat OpenShift is our preffered solution. It provides a supported kubernetes platform which contains all the required tools to make the life of customers easier and offer them the same experience accross all hyperscalers, …
I find OpenShift opinionated but also requiring less configuration to be functional than the other platforms that I've mentioned, and Tanzu requires Faustian contracts to be signed.
JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform is great when you are looking at building more or less pure Java applications and SOA micro-services that may integrate with multiple external data sources. It is less useful when you are looking to build simple SOA applications that are simple in nature since the overhead associated with deploying as well as learning BPEL.
Red Hat OpenShift, despite its complexity and overhead, remains the most complete and enterprise-ready Kubernetes platform available. It excels in research projects like ours, where we need robust CI/CD, GPU scheduling, and tight integration with tools like Jupyter, OpenDataHub, and Quiskit. Its security, scalability, and operator ecosystem make it ideal for experimental and production-grade AI workloads. However, for simpler general hosting tasks—such as serving static websites or lightweight backend services—we find traditional VMs, Docker, or LXD more practical and resource-efficient. Red Hat OpenShift shines in complex, container-native workflows, but can be overkill for basic infrastructure needs.
JBoss is open source so the cost overhead to deploy and build application is very low.
JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform and its parent Redhat are reputed and well adapted in the industry so it is easy to find best practices documentation for complex deployments of JBoss middleware.
One of the big advantages of Red Hat OpenShift is, especially over Kubernetes itself, is that it provides a lot of built-in operators for doing a lot of different things right out of the box that you don't have to worry about trying to configure. So one of the big ones is, I mean, right in your face is that user interface and being able to work with it inside of a browser. And I think that works very, very well.
JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform is dependent and build for JEE/Java application so using a different programming paradigm will be much harder.
There is still a learning curve to get familiar with BPEL making it harder to get an SOA micro-service up and running compared to a fully cloud-based service
I would say that's the logging part because Red Hat OpenShift write tons of locks and if most time in the finance industry, we cannot use the built in logging infrastructure for compliance reasons. And we have to forward the logs out of the system and this is, it's too much, which we forward from one cluster. Most time we'll build up multi clusters, so we speak about 10 or more clusters. And if you send log files from 10 or more clusters, the logging systems are not prepared to take that much load. And then really often you have license problems with the logging system, so that's not really, really fun. So logging could be improved.
Going to stay with this platform for the unforeseeable future. It matches our Target Architecture 2030 strategy internally to adopt more modularized platforms with Open Source on the back-end so that if needed containerized workloads can move to a different platform. With open-source based application telemetry collection being utilized on the back-end, integrating our already existing oTeL observability based platform makes it easier for our apps to be monitored
As I said before, the obserability is one of the weakest point of OpenShift and that has a lot to do with usability. The Kibana console is not fully integrated with OpenShift console and you have to switch from tab to tab to use it. Same with Prometheus, Jaeger and Grafan, it's a "simple" integration but if you want to do complex queries or dashboards you have to go to the specific console
Redhat openshift is generally reliable and available platform, it ensures high availability for most the situations. in fact the product where we put openshift in a box, we ensure that the availability is also happening at node and network level and also at storage level, so some of the factors that are outside of Openshift realm are also working in HA manner.
Overall, this platform is beneficial. The only downsides we have encountered have been with pods that occasionally hang. This results in resources being dedicated to dead or zombie pods. Over time, these wasted resources occasionally cause us issues, and we have had difficulty monitoring these pods. However, this issue does not overshadow the benefits we get from Openshift.
Redhat support generally is great and that is true for the JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform as well. Even if you do not buy support from Redhat, you can reply on the discussion board and bug fixes via the open-source JBoss without much trouble.
Their customer support team is good and quick to respond. On a couple of occassions, they have helped us in solving some issues which we were finding a tad difficult to comprehend. On a rare occasion, the response was a bit slow but maybe it was because of the festival season. Overall a good experience on this front.
I was not involved in the in person training, so i can not answer this question, but the team in my org worked directly with Openshift and able to get the in person training done easily, i did not hear problem or complain in this space, so i hope things happen seamlessly without any issue.
We went thru the training material on RH webesite, i think its very descriptive and the handson lab sesssions are very useful. It would be good to create more short duration videos covering one single aspect of openshift, this wll keep the interest and also it breaks down the complexity to reasonable chunks.
Oracle SOA Suite (Oracle BPM + Oracle BPEL + other components) and IBM WebSphere middleware is most costly and suited if you are already using applications and other middleware components from these vendors. Mulesoft (Salesforce Mule ESB) is best when you need deep integration with one of Salesforce's existing products. JBoss and Apache Web Server are best when you do not want to invest infant CapEx/OpEx on license fee. Apache Web Server based middleware is best for simple SOA applications.
We utilized the Thycotic Secret Service to manage all our application secrets, resulting in seamless integration with our applications. We developed all the applications using Red Hat Fuse (currently migrated to Quarkus). We used the built-in Kali Linux support of OpenShift to manage and configure the services and API. Additionally, the Red Hat Developer Studio facilitates faster development.
This is a great platform to deployment container applications designed for multiple use cases. Its reasonably scalable platform, that can host multiple instances of applications, which can seamlessly handle the node and pod failure, if they are configured properly. There should be some scalability best practices guide would be very useful
When you talk about ROIs, I don't have any negative impacts I wanted to call out here. There is no negative impacts. In fact, it's all positive impacts what we set as our milestones towards achieving our goals, towards achieving our greater vision. Red Hat OpenShift has got a big role in it and it is certainly helping us.
