Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of hekonsek@gmail.com designates
 209.85.223.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1347485158100-5719214.post@n5.nabble.com>
References: <1347485158100-5719214.post@n5.nabble.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:11:31 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CALhQg-ZdiU8xkb34Cbmxa0DoUz2gnVv1sppOS746=49Ft9A+zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Camel vs BPEL
From: Henryk Konsek <hekonsek@gmail.com>
To: users@camel.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> Hi, can anyone give some really good convincing stuff that why should 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 on 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 cost of deploying given technical solution. In my opinion
investing into the BPEL is expensive. BPEL is complicated and
inflexible. Only abusive volume of legacy BPEL code will convince me
to suggest somebody to stick to the BPEL.

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

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