Asankha,
That is true, most of the features that James said were available in his
comments in my blog, were difficult to find.
I agree that examples and documentation are very important to a project
sucess.
I will make these comments when I carry out corrections.
Regards,
Rajith
On Feb 11, 2008
Rajith
Nice article.. Another point of comparison would be how good the
documentation & samples are, especially for someone starting on it from
scratch.
asankha
Rajith Attapattu wrote:
I attend Bruce Synders talk on ActiveMQ where he talked a bit about Camel.
I wanted to reply to this threa
I attend Bruce Synders talk on ActiveMQ where he talked a bit about Camel.
I wanted to reply to this thread, instead wrote blog post comparing Camel
and Synapse.
http://rajith.2rlabs.com/2008/02/11/synapse-vs-camel/
Shout if anything is missing/wrong ..etc.
Regards,
Rajith.
On Feb 8, 2008 1:42
I really don't want to discuss Camel on this forum, but...
1. Camel uses a DSL, which today has implementations in Java *and* XML
(with Ruby and others to come). So no embedding Java in xml.
2. Camel mediator? Well I guess one could do that but, as I said in
my post, it doesn't have much mo
Camel is Java code .. so if you embed Java code in synapse.xml then you
have to start compiling Java code. Not hard but boring IMO.
The better way to use Camel is via a "Camel mediator" ... one that would
basically take our message context and convert it to the Camel format and
then invoke the
Hi Paul,
I am not sure, given the fact that there is some overlap (at least at
the intent level) between Apache Camel and Synapse. As you probably
know Camel takes the message body type agnostic stance from the get
go, which was my position in the beginning. There are quite a few
niceti
