Mule ESB 与 Spring 集成
Mule ESB vs. Spring Integration
Mule ESB 项目解释其 difference to Spring Integration on its website. However, regarding dcterms.date 2012-07-19T18:43-03:00 的文档，文本可能已过时。
引用段落的要点是
- "Spring Integration takes [...] an 'application-centric' approach to integration".
- "Rather than implement a shared bus, [...] Spring Integration is aimed at providing 'just a little' ESB-style integration to specific applications".
- "Spring Integration is best suited to situations where a small number of components must be integrated, usually internally".
- “[Spring 集成有]非常少量的可用支持传输和转换器”。
- [Spring 集成的范围有意限制为 Spring 组合上下文中的小规模集成。
这些积分还有效吗？是否存在更详细的（如果有）最新比较？
Mule ESB vs. Spring Integration
Recently, a new component called Spring Integration was added to the Spring Portfolio, which allows ESB-like functionalities and EIPs to be created and managed within the Spring Framework. Spring Integration takes what is known as an "application-centric" approach to integration.
Rather than implement a shared bus, which allows all integration and messaging between components and systems to be managed, administered, and configured centrally, Spring Integration is aimed at providing "just a little" ESB-style integration to specific applications by providing frameworks for implementing common EIPs such as a message bus and simple routing.
Due to its limited scope, Spring Integration is best suited to situations where a small number of components must be integrated, usually internally, and the infrastructure in question is made up of a large number of other Spring components. For anything more complicated, the lack of a common bus, coupled with the very small number of supported transports and transformers available for the young project makes Spring Integration unsuited for the task.
The advantage of using Mule ESB to handle integration in a Spring environment is that Mule ESB is not simply an ESB - it is an integration platform. Whereas the scope of Spring Integration is deliberately limited to small-scale integration within the Spring Portfolio context, Mule's intentionally modular architecture allows teams to quickly deliver the lightest possible integration solution for any scenario, from simple point to point integration to complicated SOA, cloud and partner ecosystem scenarios.
完全披露：我是 现任 过去的 Spring 集成项目负责人，并且作为提交者已经超过 10 年了。
虽然 Spring Integration 在 应用程序中确实促进了模块化和松散耦合 ，但它也非常适合将系统集成在一起而无需中央企业服务局。我个人知道许多非常大的企业仅使用 Spring 集成将其所有业务系统集成在一起，而没有到 configure/administer.
的中央总线服务器
它的 POJO 编程模型使 customize/extend 非常容易；如果某些 transport/protocol 不支持开箱即用，您可以简单地将其包装在 POJO 中并调用它（或考虑编写更正式的适配器并将其贡献回框架！）。
我们特别兴奋，因为它构成了新的重要 Spring Cloud Stream 的基础。
您可能想看看 DZone 最近的 Guide to Enterprise Integration，其中讨论了 Spring 集成以及竞争技术。
Mule ESB 项目解释其 difference to Spring Integration on its website. However, regarding dcterms.date 2012-07-19T18:43-03:00 的文档，文本可能已过时。
引用段落的要点是
- "Spring Integration takes [...] an 'application-centric' approach to integration".
- "Rather than implement a shared bus, [...] Spring Integration is aimed at providing 'just a little' ESB-style integration to specific applications".
- "Spring Integration is best suited to situations where a small number of components must be integrated, usually internally".
- “[Spring 集成有]非常少量的可用支持传输和转换器”。
- [Spring 集成的范围有意限制为 Spring 组合上下文中的小规模集成。
这些积分还有效吗？是否存在更详细的（如果有）最新比较？
Mule ESB vs. Spring Integration
Recently, a new component called Spring Integration was added to the Spring Portfolio, which allows ESB-like functionalities and EIPs to be created and managed within the Spring Framework. Spring Integration takes what is known as an "application-centric" approach to integration.
Rather than implement a shared bus, which allows all integration and messaging between components and systems to be managed, administered, and configured centrally, Spring Integration is aimed at providing "just a little" ESB-style integration to specific applications by providing frameworks for implementing common EIPs such as a message bus and simple routing. Due to its limited scope, Spring Integration is best suited to situations where a small number of components must be integrated, usually internally, and the infrastructure in question is made up of a large number of other Spring components. For anything more complicated, the lack of a common bus, coupled with the very small number of supported transports and transformers available for the young project makes Spring Integration unsuited for the task.
The advantage of using Mule ESB to handle integration in a Spring environment is that Mule ESB is not simply an ESB - it is an integration platform. Whereas the scope of Spring Integration is deliberately limited to small-scale integration within the Spring Portfolio context, Mule's intentionally modular architecture allows teams to quickly deliver the lightest possible integration solution for any scenario, from simple point to point integration to complicated SOA, cloud and partner ecosystem scenarios.
完全披露：我是 现任 过去的 Spring 集成项目负责人，并且作为提交者已经超过 10 年了。
虽然 Spring Integration 在 应用程序中确实促进了模块化和松散耦合 ，但它也非常适合将系统集成在一起而无需中央企业服务局。我个人知道许多非常大的企业仅使用 Spring 集成将其所有业务系统集成在一起，而没有到 configure/administer.
的中央总线服务器它的 POJO 编程模型使 customize/extend 非常容易；如果某些 transport/protocol 不支持开箱即用，您可以简单地将其包装在 POJO 中并调用它（或考虑编写更正式的适配器并将其贡献回框架！）。
我们特别兴奋，因为它构成了新的重要 Spring Cloud Stream 的基础。
您可能想看看 DZone 最近的 Guide to Enterprise Integration，其中讨论了 Spring 集成以及竞争技术。