JB, Thank you for your explanation. I was thinking mostly the same as you but wanted to get some additional feedback. I agree that certainly Camel does not have the ability to maintain state so this is an obvious use case. The other use case you mention is condition, loop, etc. I guess I could imagine that some amount of this can be implemented in camel using content-based routing assuming the message content is updated based on the last step. I guess the decision point is based on how complicated are the conditions and looping for the workflow. Perhaps it is easier to do very complicated conditions and loops in osworkflow vs. camel.
Best regards, Lou Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > > Nevertheless, only Camel isn't a workflow engine and so give a limited > answer to design a real business workflow. > Typically, a workflow engine use a database backend to maintain state > between each workflow steps. Using a workflow engine, you can define > condition, loop etc between each workflow stage. > In fact Camel can be use in some workflow steps but can't manage the > whole workflow alone. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel-vs.-osworkflow-tp24686462p24687167.html Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
