Apache Camel vs. Google Cloud Run

Message brokering across different systems, with transactionality and the ability to have fine tuned control over what happens using Java (or other languages), instead of a heavy, proprietary languages. One situation that it doesn't fit very well (as far as I have experienced) is when your workflow requires significant data mapping. While possible when using Java tooling, some other visual data mapping tools in other integration frameworks are easier to work with.

Incentivized

Microservices and RestFul API application as it is fast and reliant. Seamless integration with event triggers such as pubsub or event arc, so you can easily integrate that with usecases with file uploads, database changes, etc. Basically great with short-lived tasks, if however, you have long-running processses, Cloud Run might not be idle for this. For example if you have a long running data processing task, other solutions such as kubeflow pipelines or dataflow are more suited for this kind of tasks. Cloud Run is also stateless, so if you need memory, you will have to connect an external database.

Incentivized

• open source and a great set of component feature set - always latest features available for integration
• works well with spring boot
• great community and support for any kind of workflow
• based on enterprise integration patterns which helps our developers achieve integration tasks with all kinds of API services

Incentivized

• Real-time autoscaling. Escalamento automático em tempo real
• Simplified Continuous Deployment. Implantação contínua simplificada
• Running tasks in the background. Execução de tarefas em segundo plano

Incentivized

• Some of the documentation is a little sparse. In particular, its TCP-based routes use an underlying Netty server, and the interactions between Netty's decoder capabilities and Apache Camel's routing/handler capabilities can be a little muddy at times. In general it is clear which routes and endpoints are the more frequently used and which haven't been given as much attention.

Incentivized

• Cloud Run doesn't allow you to redeploy an already existing revision which can be inconvenient in some use cases
• Tricky to get the deployment working to start but once it's working that's great
• The actual deployment is not the fastest but it's not too bad

Incentivized

We definitely need to renew it because we dont own our own infrastructure and storage and we are happy with Cloud Run features

Incentivized

The UI/console is great... the documentation is top-notch for developers, but the CLI itself when you have to script around it is very complex and easy to forget some options... the downside of a generic command line client.

Incentivized

Not seen any major issues when we run applications its good

Incentivized

Initially we felt slow but slowly it picked up and easy to manage

Incentivized

I was involved in the initial implementation setup, Its easy with the given documentaiton we can do ourself. Not that critical

Incentivized

Apache Camel has been the integration framework of choice, but I was not the person to make the decision to use it. Compared to other competing products like Tibco Business Works, etc., it is free and open source and its licensing policy is acceptable to the management of Cox.

Incentivized

AWS Lambda supports code zip package, enabling lower cold start time. Also, AWS Lambda pricing is much simpler, easier to understand.

Other than that, the 2 products are very similar, including the Docker image support: the image must be built based on proprietary base image.

Obviously, if your other services are running in GCP, then Google Cloud Run is your only choice for tight integration, & private networking.

Incentivized

It has good auto scale feature and reliable also

Incentivized

• Very fast time to market in that so many components are available to use immediately.
• Error handling mechanisms and patterns of practice are robust and easy to use which in turn has made our application more robust from the start, so fewer bugs.
• However, testing and debugging routes is more challenging than working is standard Java so that takes more time (less time than writing the components from scratch).
• Most people don't know Camel coming in and many junior developers find it overwhelming and are not enthusiastic to learn it. So finding people that want to develop/maintain it is a challenge.

Incentivized

• It has saved us some costs since we now do not require a live server and have moved to a serverless workflow for these services
• Breaking changes do not affect the entire application now that we have separated our concerns using a serverless service
• Much easier to debug since we can now isolate our services and reduce the search space for finding/fixing bugs

Incentivized