When would you use an enterprise service bus and an integration framework like Apache Camel?

Question

I was trying to get a fix on when using Apache Camel would be appropriate and inappropriate from reading this article -- https://dzone.com/articles/when-use-apache-camel . What the article mentions is that when the number of services is low, using an integration framework like Camel might be overkill, which makes sense. But I was confused by this sentence

Although FuseSource offers commercial support, I would not use Apache Camel for very large integration projects. An ESB is the right tool for this job in most cases. It offers many additional features such as BPM or BAM. Of course, you could also use several single frameworks or products and „create“ your own ESB, but this is a waste of time and money (in my opinion).

Is this because the integration framework lacks components that an ESB provides? If so, what are those?

Answer 1

A recent article by codecentric states as follows:

Apache Camel is a framework full of tools for routing data within an application. It is a framework you use when a full-blown Enterprise Server Bus is not (yet) needed.

You can find the full article here

Answer 2

At a functional level, Apache Camel does everything that all the other ESB's do and is a fine choice for pretty much any integration work. It has connectors (components in camel-speak) for every transport you can think of, deals with clustering, can provide a JMS broker and whatever else you need to integrate.

It doesn't have the nice UI's and IDEs that other tools (Tibco, webMethods, Boomi etc) which is a big advantage. The developers might actually write unit tests if you use Camel :) I'm joking of course, integration devs never write unit tests.

In terms of "weight" Camel itself is not too bloated. It can be used as a standalone runtime or you can simply leverage the integration capabilities as a library in another app. It heavily utilises spring and can run a large number of threads, so requires a reasonable amount of memory (~512Mb JVM Heap would be the lower bound) but is not difficult to use. It wont fight you.

JBoss Fuse is the full blown Red Hat supported Enterprise ESB. It is based around Camel, but uses apache karaf as the runtime which is a OSGi container. This is heavy weight but gives you a very powerful ESB runtime, deployment model and management interface and you can buy commercial support for Fuse and ActiveMQ from Red Hat. This is the more traditional "ESB" platform, but deep down inside all the integration functionality comes from Camel.

Answer 3

Don't get too stuck in words like ESB and frameworks. The things that should decide on what kind of platform you need should depend on:

1. Your current and future system landscape
2. Your current and future requirements (technical and non-functional)
3. Your in house competence
4. Your budget

After going through those steps then you can evaluate and come to a conclusion on what you need .For some apache camel is the best fit for some other platforms may be a better fit. Don't get stuck in words like ESB etc.

Answer 4

I have been working with various products that are used to implement ESBs in the past 10 years: Apache Camel, Mule, Oracle Service Bus, IBM Integration Bus (WebSphere Message Broker), Spring Integration, FUSE, etc. I can tell you what are the differences from various perspectives, but most importantly, what you have to understand is that ESB is an abstract concept - basically a "bus" in terms of integration patterns that connects various services in an entreprise. For this reason, you can build an ESB with a product that targets this specific need (e.g. IIB) or you can build it with something much more generic (e.g. SpringIntegration).

Management point of view:

The top-end commercial products (the ones you refer to "ESBs") like the ones from Oracle or IBM are well suited for this job. They have nice user interfaces that are made for implementing a bus pattern. On the workforce market you will need to find (may be simple or not) certified specialists to operate these products. Behind these products you will get support of big companies with which the enterprise may already have existing contracts. Often these products will have very specific connectors that may (or not, see developer point of view) ease your life. To give you an example, IBM's product will have very efficient connectors for IBM MQ or Mainframe CICS. They also offer out-of-the box integrations with other products like BPM. When building bigger implementations of ESBs, the projects are structured by the fact that not everything can be done in such a product - this means that you have smaller risk but also less flexibility. In terms of problems management, you are relatively safe because you blame the big company that supports you. Towards the more "open" products/frameworks like FUSE, Mule, Camel, etc., you will start getting very flexible software that may be also cheaper as a start price. For working with it you will need generic profiles, but you will also need software architects to design your product because nothing forces you build the message flows in a particular way. At a certain point you will need at least some very skilled developers because you may not get efficient support, depending on the product you choose. In terms of problems management, you are fully responsible for this choice.

Developer point of view:

Top-end commercial products will come with in-built connectors and other operators - quick to build a POC. However, any customization will be a pain (for instance you may have an HTTP connector, but you may need to switch to some new SHA algorithm that has not been standard at the time you installed). The introduction of specific custom connectors will be possible, but much more complicated than with "open" products. You'll get nice user interfaces that will hide the code. This will mean a series of drawbacks for you, for instance code repository usage will not be efficient (can't diff two versions), unit tests are difficult to write, etc. The integrations with other products like BPM will force you to use a pre-chosen product, anything else will be doable but expensive. The open-end products/frameworks will be flexible, everybody in the team will understand the product quickly (e.g. provided everyone knows Spring). Changing some core functionality might be very cheap. However, things can quickly degenerate if there is no supervision of experienced members because you can code pretty much anythig.

Architect point of view:

That said, there is something about the ESB that you should know in advance. You should be very clear in terms of capabilities of what you need to do (let's say: routing, service discovery, protocol conversion, etc.). Should you need to implement something complex in an ESB, for instance transformation of the business message, means that the business analyst will need to interact with your ESB. So for instance the expert in banking payments will need to write an XSLT for you. This XSLT might be simple, but it may also cause big trouble, for which you will be responsible. Now if this person also needs to know the product of your choice, this complicates things. Therefore the added value of integrating an ESB with BPM, BAM, etc. is very questionable. Another thing to note is that for most enterprises nowadays, the ESB is not something that would create some competitive advantage, like for instance a web page. So investing in a super complex development or out-of-the-box product needs to be challenged.

Conclusion

Not sure if it was overwhelming or understandable, but in the end it boils down to the resources you have and the complexity of the task.

Just as a comment, contrary to another answer on this question, if you are building something complex:

1. Pay attention to the Architect's point of view above.
2. You may seriously consider the open end of products because by experience I can tell you that no matter what kind of support you have, when the things get nasty you better have very skilled people in-house and no official support will really save you (apart from your face).