Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: Omar Atia <omar.atia@its.ws>
To: "users@camel.apache.org" <users@camel.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Camel vs BPEL
Thread-Topic: Camel vs BPEL
Thread-Index: AQHNkS2gl8OfEewBEUe6NOrTHsFrbpeJsQeAgABtQaA=
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:45:34 +0000
Message-ID: <0CBB2FB9E35D9C4998B56A2F1BA57B5F19F55FE3@EG-MBX1.corp.its.ws>
References: <1347485158100-5719214.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <CALhQg-ZdiU8xkb34Cbmxa0DoUz2gnVv1sppOS746=49Ft9A+zQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALhQg-ZdiU8xkb34Cbmxa0DoUz2gnVv1sppOS746=49Ft9A+zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Adding to this BPEL is slow in performance for heavy load activities.

Camel is the best solution you go for , even spring DSL configuration you c=
an do the same.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henryk Konsek [mailto:hekonsek@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 4:12 PM
To: users@camel.apache.org
Subject: Re: Camel vs BPEL

> Hi, can anyone give some really good convincing stuff that why should=20
> we use camel over BPEL?

Call me stupid, but BPEL is too complex for me. :)

If I want to orchestrate two WS endpoints and perform some transformation o=
n the data, I would like to express this with a few lines of DSL.

I'm technical guy and one of the things I'm paid for is to estimate the cos=
t of deploying given technical solution. In my opinion investing into the B=
PEL is expensive. BPEL is complicated and inflexible. Only abusive volume o=
f legacy BPEL code will convince me to suggest somebody to stick to the BPE=
L.

I don't see any value in the BPEL complexity.

--
Henryk Konsek
http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com