When to use Spring Integration vs. Camel?

Question

As a seasoned Spring user I was assuming that Spring Integration would make the most sense in a recent project requiring some (JMS) messaging capabilities (more details). After some days working with Spring Integration it still feels like a lot of configuration overhead given the amount of channels you have to configure to bring some request-response (listening on different JMS queues) communications in place.

Therefore I was looking for some background information how Camel is different from Spring Integration, but it seems like information out there are pretty spare, I found:

• http://java.dzone.com/articles/spring-integration-and-apache (Very neutral comparison between implementing a real-world integration scenario in Spring Integration vs. Camel, from December 2009)
• http://hillert.blogspot.com/2009/10/apache-camel-alternatives.html (Comparing Camel with other solutions, October 2009)
• http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/taking_apache_camel_for_a (Matt Raible, October 2008)

Question is: what experiences did you make on using the one stack over the other? In which scenarios would you recommend Camel were Spring Integration lacks support? Where do you see pros and cons of each? Any advise from real-world projects are highly appreciated.

Answer 1

We choose Camel over Spring-Integration because the fluent API is really nice. We actually use it in Spring projects and use Spring to configure part of it. The programming API's are clear and there is a large set of sensible components.

We did a small scale shootout and basically at that time for our requirement Camel won. We use it mainly to transfer internal datafiles to/from external parties which usually requires format conversions sending it using ftp/sftp/... or attaching it to an email and sending it out.

We found the edit-compile-debug cycle reduced. Using groovy to experiment setting up routes are added bonuses.

Spring-Integration is a great product too, and I am quite sure it would satisfy our needs too.

Answer 2

I only recommend Spring Integration if you already have got a Spring project and you have just to add some "basic" integration using File, FTP, JMS, JDBC, and so on.

Apache Camel has two main advantages:

1. Many, many more technologies are supported.
2. Besides, a (good) XML DSL, there are fluent APIs for Java, Groovy and Scala.

Because Apache Camel has very good integration with Spring, I would even use it instead of Spring Integration in most Spring projects.

If you need more details, you can read my experiences in my blog post: Spoilt for Choice: Which Integration Framework to use – Spring Integration, Mule ESB or Apache Camel?

Answer 3

I have recently conducted a Camel vs Spring Integration shoot-out with the aim to integrate Apache Kafka. Despite being an avid Spring developer, I sadly found my suspicion with Spring's ever-growing Project stack confirmed: Spring is awesome as IOC-Container to serve as glue for other framework, but it fails at providing viable alternatives to those frameworks. There might be exceptions to this, namely everything to do with MVC, where Spring came from and where it does a great job, but other attempts to provide new functionality on top of container features fall short for three reasons and the SI Kafka use case confirms all of them:

• Introduction of a long-winded difficult to use DSL for XML-configuration.
• Pages of xml-configuration code to get all framework components wired-up.
• Missing resources to provide functionality on par with dedicated frameworks.

Now, back to the results of my shoot-out: most importantly I am impressed by Camels overall concept of routes between endpoints. Kafka seamlessly integrates with this concept and three lines of configuration are enough to get everything up-and-running. Problems encountered during the process are neatly addressed by ample documentation from the project team as well as a lot of questions on Stackoverflow. Last but not least, there is a comprehensive integration into Spring that leaves no wishes unfulfilled.

With SI on the contrary, the documentation for the Kafka integration is quite intense and still fails to explain clearly how to integrate Kafka. The integration of Kafka is pressed into the SI-way of doing things, which adds extra complexity. Other documentation, e.g. on Stackoverflow is also less plentiful and less helpful than for Camel.

My conclusion: cobbler stick to your trade - use Spring as a container and Camel as system integration framework.

Answer 4

It really depends on what you want to do. If you need to extend something to build your own messaging solution Spring Integration has the better programming model. If you need something that supports many protocols without custom code, Camel is ahead of Spring Integration.

Having a small scale shootout is a very good idea, just make sure you're trying to do the type of things that you'd typically be doing in the project.

--disclaimer: I'm a Spring Integration committer

Answer 5

Most comparisons of Camel and SI that I've seen don't take the following into account:

1.) The effect that Spring Boot has had on developer productivity for Spring Integration

2.) The effect of Spring XD has had on making Spring Integration applications available with no code compilation - also Spring XD sources and sinks are simply Spring Integration channel adapters, when you're looking to extend Spring XD.

3.) The effect of Spring XD has had on making unifying Spring Integration, Spring Batch, Spring Data (+Hadoop!) in one stack, effectively bringing batch and stream processing, HDFS/Apache Hadoop support, and much more to Spring Integration.

4.) The effect of the soon-to-be-released Spring Integration 4.0 Java DSL https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-integration-extensions/wiki/Spring-Integration-Java-DSL-Reference

For your consideration,

/Pieter (disclaimer I work at Pivotal)

Answer 6

We are using Spring Integration for our application and now considering to move to Apache Camel as we encountered lots of issues with Spring Integration framework. Here are couple of issues.

1. The CachingConnectionFactory which Spring provides opens 1000's of idle connections in IBM MQ and there is no guarantee that these connections are reused. And still these connections will stay open forever which creates troubles on the MQ side. Had to restart the application every week in lower environments just to refresh the connections. Apache Camel also provides Caching and the connections seems to go up/down based on the load.

2. Spring doesn't provide mappers for QoS parameters. Even if you enable QoS, the delivery mode and expiration/timetolive properties will get lost (I am going to raise a JIRA issue for this). Apache Camel handles this and QoS parameters are sent to upstream applications and not dropping it.

I am right now working on issues with handling the exceptions and transactions with Apache Camel which Spring seemed to handle better with AOP.

Answer 7

Actually, I would say FTP has graduated its incubation period. You can do a simple search on SI forums/JIRA to see what new features were implemented and bugs that were fixed. From various chatter it seems like there is already some production usage out of it, so I would suggest to give it a second look and of course communicate your concerns to us via

http://forum.springsource.org/forumdisplay.php?42-Integration
https://jira.springsource.org/browse/INT

Cheers Oleg

Disclaimer: I am Spring Integration committer

Answer 8

Apache Camel is a very good framework and very complete too. But if your application uses spring, my personal advice is to use Spring Integration.

Spring Integration is the integration EIP complaint framework of Spring-Source ecosystem. It has excellent integration with the ecosystem: Spring boot, Batch, XD; even the core uses same abstraction starting from Spring Framework 4. Some of the messaging abstraction were moved in the framework, as proof that the basic messaging abstraction of Spring Integration is very strong. Now Spring framework for instance use the messaging abstraction for Spring Web, web socket support.

Another good thing in a Spring application with Spring integration respect to use Apache Camel is that with Spring integration, you can use only one Application Context. Remember that the Camel Context is a Spring context. if you have the chance of use a new Spring version, I suggest to use Spring Integration Java DSL for configuration. I use it on my new projects, and it feels more readable and clear. I hope that this reflection can help you for the your evaluations.

Answer 9

One reason to use Camel over Spring Integration is when you need a more featureful EIP set. Spring Integration doesn't provide abstractions over things such as ThreadPool.

Camel does provide additional constructs for this simplifying some of the aspects of working with concurrent code:

http://camel.apache.org/camel-23-threadpool-configuration.html

If you have no need for this sort of thing and just want to connect file, JMS, FTP endpoints etc... then just use Spring Integration.

Answer 10

Camel act as middleware for application where one can perform data modeling, transformation of message values and choreography of messages.

Answer 11

If your current application is in Spring and require features which are supported by Spring Integration of EIP then Spring Integration is the best option else require more third party supports/protocols/file formats etc