| [[HowdoesCamelcomparetoMule-HowdoesCamelcomparetoMule]] |
| = How does Camel compare to Mule? |
| |
| This FAQ entry was written when Mule 1.x and 2.x existed. It doesn't |
| cater for how Mule may go in Mule 3.x. |
| |
| I guess from 30,000 feet they're kinda |
| xref:why-the-name-camel.adoc[similar beasts]; they're both kinds of |
| routing/mediation engines. The main differences are as follows: |
| |
| * Camel uses a Java xref:ROOT:dsl.adoc[Domain Specific Language] in addition |
| to Spring XML for configuring the routing rules and providing |
| xref:{eip-vc}:eips:enterprise-integration-patterns.adoc[Enterprise Integration |
| Patterns] |
| * Camel's API is smaller & cleaner (IMHO) and is closely aligned with |
| the APIs of JBI, xref:components::cxf-component.adoc[CXF] and |
| xref:components::jms-component.adoc[JMS]; based around message exchanges (with in and optional |
| out messages) which more closely maps to REST, WS, WSDL & JBI than the |
| UMO model Mule is based on |
| * Camel allows the underlying transport details to be easily exposed |
| (e.g. the `JmsExchange`, `JbiExchange`, `HttpExchange` objects expose all the |
| underlying transport information & behaviour if its required). See |
| xref:how-does-the-camel-api-compare-to.adoc[How does the Camel API |
| compare to] |
| * Camel supports an implicit xref:ROOT:type-converter.adoc[Type Converter] in |
| the core API to make it simpler to connect components together requiring |
| different types of payload & headers |
| * Camel uses the https://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0[Apache 2 License] rather than Mule's more restrictive commercial license |
