Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMwm1vH0qiyA=7ZcpD9BN7JsnWGZW9xnq3hniUGYfZfLEEY6iQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1338485680496-5713797.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <CAMwm1vGW4st0ejU+8GgzoA8OgGw8pAH22tmp2tdwONe7nvi8MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANZYW6b6r0FT1cNKB+eJsM4vPNkHWPQigDy8cQFoysiym4kpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAChkQp0xRpx=CWTRgKyVPsAmcjuRMhuZXkEEUAkH2aNkwZUzCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMwm1vH0qiyA=7ZcpD9BN7JsnWGZW9xnq3hniUGYfZfLEEY6iQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:38:15 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALznzY5ojBx3TJJOxHWRsjHO23v5=-2aCPnxOVLFfw=ViGXTmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Difference Between ActiveMQ and Camel
To: users@camel.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think it's important to keep in mind that Camel isn't just about
JMS.  It's an integration framework which supports MANY integration
technologies (files, database, email, raw sockets, twitter, etc.).

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually I more often hear of Camel being used as a JMS consumer than
> a producer, but it's built to work both ways.
>
> Camel is a repository of producers and consumers for various forms of
> messages. =A0It can handle, among others, email, XMPP chat, text
> messages, files via FTP and, yes, JMS. =A0It can be a consumer of any of
> those, receiving them and relaying them to any of those in turn.
> Thus, with very little work, you can receive email and write it to
> files, or read files and generate JMS queue entries, or read JMS
> queues and send the messages as email.
>
> Generally, though, it reads from or writes to a JMS queue, but does
> not provide a JMS queue for reading from or writing to. =A0ActiveMQ
> provides JMS queues.
>
> Don
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:42 PM, prasun.sultania
> <prasun.sultania@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @Sully You mean to say is that, Camel provides an integration with messa=
ge
>> producer Application and the JMS Broker ActiveMQ? It acts as a bridge
>> between the two, while providing Integration services defined in EIP and
>> hiding the complexity of writing a JMS Client from scratch?
>>
>> @Donald you mean that camel provides a better connectivity for message
>> producers, and ActiveMQ has got better way of handling Consumers.I mean
>> Camel can route a message from Consumer to JMS provider, but ActiveMQ ca=
n
>> assure more reliable delivery of messages to consumers?
>>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:57 PM, sully6768 [via Camel] <
>> ml-node+s465427n5713799h55@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My short summary,
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ is an open source, enterprise messaging provider that conforms=
 to
>>> the JMS 1.1 specification.
>>>
>>> Camel is an open source integration framework. =A0At its core it is an
>>> implementation of Enterprise Integration
>>> Patterns<http://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/>(EIP) by Gregor
>>> Hohpe upon which numerous folks around the planet have
>>> added integration consumer and producer extensions that provide the
>>> connectivity options for the EIP message channels.
>>>
>>> As such, Camel would provide the integration layer to ActiveMQ in place=
 of
>>> hand writing the JMS clients.
>>>
>>> Does that help?
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Donald Whytock <[hidden email]<http:/=
/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=3Dnode&node=3D5713799&i=3D0>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > My understanding is that ActiveMQ can serve as a host for JMS message
>>> > queues, supporting applications that use them. =A0Camel isn't meant a=
s a
>>> > host for JMS queueing as much as a listener to a JMS queue.
>>> >
>>> > Don
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:34 PM, prasun.sultania
>>> > <[hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=3Dnode&node=3D5713799=
&i=3D1>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > I am a beginner. I have a very question to ask:
>>> > >
>>> > > Camel has got almost all the components described in EIP such as
>>> message
>>> > > routing, Point to Point Channel and Publish-Subscribe channel.
>>> > >
>>> > > Still why do we need ActiveMQ when Camel has got everything?
>>> > > What difference does ActiveMQ makes?
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > View this message in context:
>>> >
>>> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Difference-Between-ActiveMQ-and-Camel=
-tp5713797.html
>>> > > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Scott England-Sullivan
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> FuseSource
>>> Web: =A0 =A0 http://www.fusesource.com
>>> Blog: =A0 =A0 http://sully6768.blogspot.com
>>> Twitter: sully6768
>>> --
>>> Scott England-Sullivan
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> FuseSource
>>> Web: =A0 =A0 http://www.fusesource.com
>>> Blog: =A0 =A0 http://sully6768.blogspot.com
>>> Twitter: sully6768
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> =A0If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discus=
sion
>>> below:
>>>
>>> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Difference-Between-ActiveMQ-and-Camel=
-tp5713797p5713799.html
>>> =A0To unsubscribe from Difference Between ActiveMQ and Camel, click her=
e<http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=3Dunsubs=
cribe_by_code&node=3D5713797&code=3DcHJhc3VuLnN1bHRhbmlhQGdtYWlsLmNvbXw1NzE=
zNzk3fDM2MTc2NDYwMw=3D=3D>
>>> .
>>> NAML<http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=
=3Dmacro_viewer&id=3Dinstant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=3Dnabble.naml.=
namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.v=
iew.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=3Dnotify_subscribers%21nabble%3A=
email.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble=
%3Aemail.naml>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Differen=
ce-Between-ActiveMQ-and-Camel-tp5713797p5713801.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.