Filter Ratings and Reviews
Filter 27 vetted Apache Camel reviews and ratings
Reviews (1-7 of 7)
Companies can't remove reviews or game the system. Here's why.
March 28, 2017
When we switched from a monolithic architecture to a service oriented one we were researching on all the enterprise integration technologies. We chose Apache Camel because it was lightweight, was easy to get started with, had a groovy DSL and because it was an implementation of existing integration patterns. Over the last few years, Apache Camel became the glue that binds all our micro services. We use publish-subscribe pattern the most i.e consuming from and producing to AWS SQS queues. A lot of our quartz jobs are heavily depended on Apache Camel as well. I would highly recommend Apache Camel as a lightweight yet formidable enterprise integration solution.
- Producing to and consuming from any messaging system
- Message type conversion
- Large support library
- Documentation could use some more detail
- Hot deployment
Apache Camel is used by many departments at Cox Communications, but not the entire organization. It enables quick and scaleable integration of diverse business systems at Cox and reduces development effort and resources. Various Camel components are used and there is even a customized version of Camel Http4 component. Also Camel fits well in the existing infrastructure at Cox.
- 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.
- Camel features and documentation can get confusing to new users. Documentation can and should be improved. Also it would help if there are more tutorials available. Certification in Camel and related technologies like Servicemix and Karaf would also help.
- The Camel infrastructure probably needs to be rebuilt (hopefully this may happen with version 3.0). At this time the latest production release of Camel (2.17.x) is not built with the latest version of Java (JDK 1.8).
- Camel should also move towards becoming a "heavyweight" ESB product, though this may detract from some of its desirable features.
July 12, 2016
I worked on a product development team creating an enterprise cybersecurity product. The core event processing mechanism of the product used Apache Camel in many places, mainly to handle interactions over JMS between the various modules of the product. Apache Camel especially makes the process of sending a POJO from one method to another across two separate application components, handling the marshaling and unmarshaling via JAXB, and the sending and receiving via JMS. It achieves all this routing via a simple XML configuration that is part of the application's spring context (although it can also be configured procedurally).
- Configuration of information routing via XML in a Sprint Context.
- Robustness. Apache Camel is capable of handling many different information transfer protocols out-of-the-box.
- Extensibility. Apache Camel also allows for custom routing handlers where needed.
- 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.
I've used Apache Camel as a great alternative integration framework compared to heavier middleware solutions from companies like IBM. It serves that purpose wonderfully, and is a total pleasure to use. Great plugins for almost any connector you could need, and they all work as expected.
- Open source, which is vitally important
- Great integration with Java frameworks such as Spring Boot, allowing it to be deployed however you need to deploy it
- Wonderful testing tools as part of the framework
- Documentation could use some work, sometimes it takes a bit of trial and error to figure out how to do something.
Apache Camel is being used for multiple projects in different organizations that I have worked at. It is being leveraged for EIP as well as writing event based code.
I worked for an organization that used Camel with Karaf (OSGi) and other organizations where Camel was used just as an open source framework.
I worked for an organization that used Camel with Karaf (OSGi) and other organizations where Camel was used just as an open source framework.
- EIP - enterprise integration patterns. Read events from queue, route to different processes and work on the messages.
- REST APIs- Apache CXF is used and Camel could be used to provide endpoints.
- Batches - Camel could be used to trigger batches and do large scale processing, using its throttling. It provides lots of connectors to work with.
- I feel that Apache Camel is lacking a Spring XD like framework integration with big data capabilities.
- Apache Camel seems to be very dependent on Spring.
We use it as the processing backbone/Enterprise Integration Pattern (EIP) framework for several products that we develop. It is used to provide components for message ingest, orchestration and export. By orchestration, I mean the determination and execution of the path of any single message through the application. It also is our primary error handling mechanism as it provides out-of-the-box error retry, waiting and exponential backoff.
- 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.
- I find the "seda" endpoint to be less obvious that it is doing multi-threading than Spring Integration's executor mechanism.
- Integration with Spring Beans is pretty good, but I believe SI's is a bit better (for obvious reasons, both being Spring products).
- SI's use support is probably a bit better/faster and I believe the user base is larger so that there are most questions/answers for SI on StackOverflow
I used it when I worked at Verizon Wireless. We used apache Camel on a couple projects as an integration layer between the UI and backend services and databases. We used Apache Camel's REST component. We used it as xml and java dsl [solution].
- It uses URIs to directly integrate with various back-end components.
- It has a very easy to use REST component.
- Easy to track the execution flow while coding by using routers.
- Helps keep different components separate.
- To be able to hot deploy
Apache Camel Scorecard Summary
What is Apache Camel?
Apache Camel is an open source integration platform.
Categories: Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
Apache Camel Technical Details
| Operating Systems: | Unspecified |
|---|---|
| Mobile Application: | No |