Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA814DF8F for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 25434 invoked by uid 500); 14 Sep 2012 07:05:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 25221 invoked by uid 500); 14 Sep 2012 07:05:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 25204 invoked by uid 99); 14 Sep 2012 07:05:12 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:05:12 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of graham.little@outlook.com designates 157.55.1.160 as permitted sender) Received: from [157.55.1.160] (HELO dub0-omc2-s21.dub0.hotmail.com) (157.55.1.160) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:05:04 +0000 Received: from DUB002-W1 ([157.55.1.136]) by dub0-omc2-s21.dub0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:04:43 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_bb8edc2f-0396-454d-a16e-354f840392fb_" X-Originating-IP: [78.186.54.239] From: Graham Little To: "users@camel.apache.org" Subject: RE: oracle BPEL vs camel Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:04:42 +0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: <1347473124730-5719204.post@n5.nabble.com>, MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2012 07:04:43.0148 (UTC) FILETIME=[37490CC0:01CD9247] --_bb8edc2f-0396-454d-a16e-354f840392fb_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + 1 Also=2C it is well used in industry. I have used camel in numerous big fina= ncial and media companies. > Date: Fri=2C 14 Sep 2012 00:40:43 +0200 > Subject: Re: oracle BPEL vs camel > From: christian.mueller@gmail.com > To: users@camel.apache.org >=20 > it's cheaper (Camel is for free) > it's simpler (the Camel DSL is much more readable and understandable) > it's more flexible (it works with any kind of payload) > it supports more protocols (more than 120 at present) > it's more open (you can extend Camel yourself and add new components) > it has a very good community which helps other users (Red Hat CEO Jim > Whitehurst says: In the ESB case=2C that leading community is the Apache > Camel project: http://tinyurl.com/bphnwfm) >=20 > Best=2C > Christian >=20 > On Wed=2C Sep 12=2C 2012 at 8:05 PM=2C mfcplus wrote: >=20 > > Hi=2C can anyone give some really good convincing stuff that why should= we > > use > > camel over BPEL? I'm trying to convince somebody here to use camel inst= ead > > of oracle SOA 11g that has BPEL engine as so called 'orchestrator'. any > > references=2C materials are good=2C and especially like to have some in= put from > > the gurus > > > > many thanks > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/oracle-BPEL-vs-camel-tp5719204.html > > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- = --_bb8edc2f-0396-454d-a16e-354f840392fb_--