ActiveMQ vs. Camel vs. Qpid

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ActiveMQ vs. Camel vs. Qpid

heapifyman
Hello,

I am quite new to the whole messaging thing and I am a bit confused about the differences between ActiveMQ, Camel and Qpid. Especially, which tool would be suited best for which scenarios?

I'd appreciate if anyone could point me at some documentation or examples that cover and differentiate the different application scenarios of each tool.

Thanks in advance.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ vs. Camel vs. Qpid

James Strachan-2
On 26 August 2010 11:53, heapifyman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am quite new to the whole messaging thing and I am a bit confused about
> the differences between ActiveMQ, Camel and Qpid. Especially, which tool
> would be suited best for which scenarios?

So ActiveMQ and Qpid are both message brokers. ActiveMQ is very
popular (when nabble used to show an activity ranking, ActiveMQ was
usually in the top 5 Apache projects); its probably the most popular
open source message broker and has been around along time, used in a
large number of production settings for years & has loads of advanced
features and can support a massive range of different requirements,
protocols, network topologies & quality of service in messaging. Qpid
is a relative newcomer that is trying to implement the AMQP
specification which should hit 1.0 any time now AFAIK.

e.g. compare the traffic on the user lists to get an idea of their
relative usage...
http://activemq.markmail.org/search/?q=activemq#query:activemq%20list%3Aorg.apache.activemq.users+page:1+state:facets
http://apache.markmail.org/search/?q=qpid#query:qpid%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.qpid-users+page:1+state:facets

Or google trends
http://www.google.com/trends?q=qpid%2C+activemq


Camel on the other hand is an integration framework for implementing
the Enterprise Integration Patterns. So its a framework for routing,
mediating & transforming messages. Camel is middleware agnostic - it
can work with all of these technologies...
http://camel.apache.org/components.html

Camel can implement these Enterprise Integration Patterns...
http://camel.apache.org/enterprise-integration-patterns.html

Camel is also integrated into ActiveMQ out of the box so its easy to
route messages to & from ActiveMQ with any of the other technologies
and protocols supported by Camel
http://activemq.apache.org/enterprise-integration-patterns.html


BTW there's a couple of great books coming out on ActiveMQ and Camel
if you want to learn more
http://fusesource.com/fuse/apache-books/

--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ActiveMQ vs. Camel vs. Qpid

James Strachan-2
In reply to this post by heapifyman
On 26 August 2010 11:53, heapifyman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am quite new to the whole messaging thing and I am a bit confused about
> the differences between ActiveMQ, Camel and Qpid. Especially, which tool
> would be suited best for which scenarios?

To specifically answer this part of your question; if you want to
integrate stuff together - whether the stuff comes from files,
databases, message brokers, web services or whatever, I'd recommend
Camel. Its what its great for.

If you want

* to connect your systems together using a high performance reliable
message broker
* a reliable & high performance load balancing (with optional
persistence & transactions) of requests across your services
* to disseminate business events across your systems using a variety
of protocols like OpenWire / Stomp / REST / WebSockets

then I'd recommend ActiveMQ.

--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/