Comments on: Synapse vs Camel

By: William Henry

William Henry — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:24:28 +0000

Really useful comparison Rajith. IT would be worth updating every 6 months or so. Or for major changes.

William

By: Debbie Moynihan

Debbie Moynihan — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:53:48 +0000

Rajith,
how are you? I just wanted to say this was a nice write-up - it is helpful to see a comparison from someone who has taken a look at both Camel and Synapse.

Debbie

By: rajith

rajith — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:53:24 +0000

James,

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate it.
I will update the article with the points you mentioned.

Regards,

Rajith

By: James Strachan

James Strachan — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:53:48 +0000

BTW a massive difference between Synapse and Camel is that Camel has been designed from the ground up to work great inside a JMS broker or a JBI based ESB or a web services stack; so Camel has amazing JMS and JBI support.

By: James Strachan

James Strachan — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:52:01 +0000

Great article! BTW a couple of corrections on the Camel side of things…

* you can use Camel to do protocol switching from any protocol to any protocol with whatever EIP patterns in between (e.g. Message Translator etc). e.g. from(”activemq:SomeQueue”).to(”ftp://somehost/somedir”);
* Camel supports non blocking HTTP too BTW
* its trivial to deploy Camel inside any Spring or WAR application or as an OSGi bundle, working great with Spring Dynamic Modules
* yes Camel has a similar WS-* strategy; using CXF to support the SOAP/WS-* protocols on any endpoint. e.g. from(”soap:activemq:SomeQueue”).to(”soap:xmpp:localhost”) etc
* yes Camel has support for load balancing, throttling, resequencing etc. See http://activemq.apache.org/camel/enterprise-integration-patterns.html
* for stateful replication, we rely on ActiveMQ’s Message Groups feature or using EJB3
* for payload conversion Camel has a large range of Data Formats as well as a sophisticated type conversion library