Oracle Service Bus Reviews

Overall it is a pretty good solution.

The most valuable aspects of the solution are mainly the SOA, and the JMS patch. There are some out-of-box items that are good, and, for the most part, they do provide good plugins. We have done the integration with the ESB.

I'm very comfortable with Oracle. I have a good understanding of how the solution works.

Mainly our integrations are under JMS. We are looking at some products which have good features and performance related to the JMS. Even if tomorrow if you're planning to replace JMS with Kafka or some other product, then it will be feasible to do it very quickly. However, in Oracle, we have seen a lot of difficulties when we go to integrate Kafka with the replacement of JMS. 

The personal settings are not up-to-date, in terms of orchestration. In Italy, we use SOA, however, we have faced a lot of difficulties when we have orchestration projects. 

The interface console is very slow. Even in production, we need to increase the RAM or CPU. And even after that, the performance is still not good in production.

Sometimes, we have seen data loss from the EM. We can't even recover the data from the back end table. Even if we ask the Oracle support team to get a patch they're taking one or two months for the production issue to resolve. These issues are killing the business and productivity. For this reason, management decided to replace Oracle with some other products that are also based on the current application - such as SAP and TIBCO. We're updating our system anyway, so it is a good time to get rid of Oracle.

With Oracle right now, we have to hire more people in the support team to look into all the issues we're facing. That is killing our delivery times and everything. 

If I want to do certain integrations or use certain plugins, it occasionally can be really difficult to do the configuration in Oracle Service Bus.

I've been working with the solution for about 12 years at this point. It has been over a decade.

Technical support hasn't been too good as of late. 

They say that they are good in terms of dealing with an existing issue. If you highlight it, they can quickly respond with the patch or they can respond with the previous tickets. However, with the new tickets, they will acknowledge your tickets, yet they take forever to actually resolve them. 

I've only ever really worked with Oracle products. I did not previously use a different solution.

The cost is reasonable. The price is fine. However, you need to see results from support. When issues pop up in production, delays in support can lead to revenue loss. For this reason, our company is looking into other options. The solution isn't worth the price if it's costing you money in the long run.  

Right now, we're doing some due diligence before buying a product. The concept is the same in all the products, only the components are different, the way of integration also are different but the concept is same with the ESB. That's what we are discussing with the technical team. We might look at TIBCO or other things such as MuleSoft.

We aren't using the latest version of the solution. We're working on an older one right now.

After more than a decade of working with the product, I can say that it is a pretty good solution. That said, before buying, a company needs to take into account their overall infrastructure to understand the volume of data they will need to process, et cetera. Based on those requirements, you'll need to find a product that works for you. 

While I like Oracle, there's no denying the support issues. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

In previous organizations, Oracle Service Bus was predominantly used to build integration pipelines between many applications present in the network. In current organizations and projects, it remains in extensive use, providing various integrations needed for application landscapes and supporting different business operations.

The observability of the entire landscape has significantly improved, allowing proactive intervention in case of potential downtimes. Standardization and consolidation of the technology stack are essential benefits of Service Bus, as they create a consumable service and API architecture that is both scalable and adaptable. This plug-and-play approach allows businesses to scale operations according to their needs, which we have benefitted from in past projects.

Joining many services targeted at different endpoints is enabled through Oracle Service Bus. It provides a variety of connectors, allowing integration with numerous target systems. 

The flexibility offered by Oracle Service Bus, especially in the latest versions, includes abstracting underlying processes and enabling drag-and-drop mappings from source to destination. This ability facilitates easy business logic implementation.

While I have not used the latest versions, resource efficiency could be optimized, considering past experiences. Another area for improvement is the potential inclusion of an API gateway, which is currently missing from Oracle's offerings.

I've been using Oracle Service Bus for seven to eight years.

I have not encountered major stability issues, although configuration needs to be thorough. Configuration errors might introduce latency or disruptions, hence careful configuration is required for optimal performance.

Scalability has not been a problem. Oracle Service Bus can be rated eight out of ten for scalability.

Oracle's customer support is excellent, rated nine out of ten. Their support is mature and provides peace of mind in terms of scalability, high availability, and security.

Positive

Before Oracle, organizations may go through benchmark evaluations comparing competitor tools and services to determine what best satisfies their needs.

The initial setup was not difficult and took approximately one hour to complete.

A separate infrastructure team was responsible for installations, which was comprised of 30 individuals, including engineers and administrators.

By improving observability and offering standardization, Oracle Service Bus has resulted in faster recovery times, proactive interventions, and a plug-and-play architecture adaptable to business or operational needs.

Oracle products are generally expensive. However, with an enterprise agreement, they offer a more affordable solutions package. It is essential to evaluate the coating offers and relationships between the organization and Oracle for cost-effectiveness.

Organizations perform competitor benchmarking or VM benchmarking for tools and services to assess potential solutions.

Oracle Service Bus offers great integration and observability benefits. It is recommended because of Oracle's comprehensive customer service and mature technology stack, ensuring scalability, security, and consolidation.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Its ease of use is valuable. It's very easy to use. It's no code/low code. Oracle Middleware products are also rich in adapters. 

It's stable. There aren't any bugs or issues.

If they can containerize this, that would be nice. If they can provide docker images and offer support for those containers, that would be great.

It's a stable product. Oracle purchased it from someone else, and it was already well-established. 

Its implementation depends on your skills. The more experience you have, the better designs or architecture you will have. The product might be the same, but the quality will vary based on how you implement it.

They are now moving towards the cloud. You have to evaluate what your requirements are and what your future strategies are. Based on that, you can go with an on-prem one or a cloud one. Nowadays, many products come with iPass, which is the lighter version or flavor of a product. The lighter flavors are for citizen developers, but if you want to do complex orchestration and build complex integrations, you definitely need a product like this with all the features available.

I'd rate Oracle Service Bus an eight out of ten. 

We use Oracle Service Bus to send data to ServiceNow because we needed to connect Salesforce to ServiceNow, so that's our use case for the solution.

What I like most about Oracle Service Bus is that you can use it for many integrations. For example, you can use it for on-premises to on-premises integrations, on-premises to cloud integrations, and cloud to on-premises integrations.

What needs improvement in Oracle Service Bus is the connectivity between adapters such as the Salesforce adapter and database adapters. The limited number of adapters compatible with Oracle Service Bus makes you want to switch to a different solution.

I have ten years of experience with Oracle Service Bus.

Oracle Service Bus has good stability. My company rarely has an issue with it. It's mostly stable.

Oracle Service Bus is a scalable solution.

Sometimes, we contact the Oracle Service Bus technical support team and they immediately assisted us with our issues.

The initial setup for Oracle Service Bus wasn't complex. You can easily install it. There wasn't any challenge with installing the solution.

The implementation strategy my company used was to install Oracle Service Bus via scripts, similar to a DevOps deployment.

We implemented Oracle Service Bus through an in-house team.

A different team handles the licensing for Oracle Service Bus, so I don't know how much it costs.

My company has almost a hundred customers, so it has a lot of users of Oracle Service Bus.

Only four people handle the deployment and maintenance of Oracle Service Bus.

I would recommend Oracle Service Bus to people who want to start using it because it could be used for a lot of cases and for a lot of integrations.

My rating for Oracle Service Bus is nine out of ten.

Oracle makes adapters that work with a ton of software, so it makes it a lot easier to integrate with other systems.

It is stable.

It's hard to find developers to work on it, and it's also very expensive to license in the cloud.

The pricing is high.

It's very complex and hard to learn. There's a steep learning curve.

The solution is complex to set up.

I've been using the solution for six or seven years. 

It's definitely stable. It's fast and it's definitely heavily supported. That's definitely something I would describe it as. The reliability and performance are good.

While it is not scalable in the cloud, it is scalable outside of that. 

We have 45 users on the solution currently.

Support is pretty fast and they do work to fix bugs in a timely manner.

I replaced this solution with a Red Hat product.

It's more mature than Red Hat. They have a whole process that you go through. If the bug is their fault, you'll get a fixed board within one to two days, which is great if it's a major issue. I'd say support is a little better than the Red Hat solution.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It's very complex. 

The cost of the solution is too high. I can't remember the exact pricing, however, it is extremely expensive. There are cheaper better solutions out there. 

We're just a customer or end-user.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

I'm an integration architect and we're a customer of Oracle. 

What's valuable is the ability to master the process in one location. That's the main difference between other firewall products and this. Usually, there's an issue when you want to integrate many services together because you can't save contacts in one place. For example, if you have A, that calls B, that calls C, that calls D, there's no place to store your contacts and that's a problem. We can do that with Oracle.

The main inconvenience is the composition between services. Using software initiation, occupation with BPM, or BPI is better. There are issues, especially if you want to create some compensation in your service bin. If you have six or seven services you call in the same process, it's very difficult and that's the main issue. I get compensation with the WBS tool. 

Another point relates to monitoring. When you want to show what's happened in your system, you have to deploy a direct system on each service. It's simple to put the monitoring on your BPM and that's the main difference for me. Also, connectors can be on Apache Kafka, on Oracle, or OpenESB, or on Mule, it's the same thing. It's how you execute the process. For example, OpenESB support is the difference between the interface with the service and the implementation. Oracle is more intelligent. When you want to invoke a service B, for example, you don't directly invoke service B but ask the system for the best and most accurate implementation of B for your system and it provides that. You can't do that with a simple ESB. 

For additional features, if I compare OpenESB, there is the possibility to define policy between services so that when you create a connection, you can't associate the connection with the policy. That could be included in the solution. 

I've been using the product for a year. 

It's a stable solution. 

I have no problems with the scalability, but when you define the hierarchies there can be problems. 

We've never used technical support, we have our own tech team within the company. 

Implementation took a few weeks, no more. It was relatively simple I believe but I'm not an expert on deployment and installation.

This is a good product, not an exceptional product. You could say it's a bit greedy as it requires lots of additional resources because you have to deploy the database and then ESB on top of that. But if you have the resources and people, it's a good product. 

I would rate this product seven out of 10. 

We are an IT solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients. We have competencies in different ESB products including Mulesoft ESB, Oracle Service Bus, and Microsoft BizTalk. 

The most valuable feature is the adapters.

This solution can be easily integrated.

The reporting is very good.

This solution would benefit from having more cloud-based adapters. 

I am a solution architect and while my background is mostly in Microsoft solutions, I am familiar with the Oracle products as well. Our company has dedicated teams that are specialized in many different solutions. The choice is driven by the client. For example, if a customer mostly has Oracle products then that is the solution that we implement.

This client for Oracle Service Bus was having trouble with point-to-point integrations, so everything was being done at the back end and it affected the ability to do jobs. This is the reason that they adopted this solution.

The initial setup is a little bit complex. One of the ways it is complex is that there are a lot of features and the customer may not want all of them. Once you figure out which ones the customer doesn't want, they have to be disabled.

The price of this solution is better than the subscription-based Mule ESB.

Mule ESB is another solution that we have a dedicated team for and a lot of experience with. It is very powerful and we felt that in this particular scenario, Oracle had an edge. Mule out-of-the-box is missing a lot of features that Oracle has, and we see this year that Oracle is getting much better than Mule.

Another reason that Oracle was selected over Mule ESB is because of the pricing.

The suitability of this solution depends on the customer's environment and requirements. For situations where they are many integration points, whether they are on-premises or in the cloud, this is a good solution.

Overall, this is a good solution from the user's perspective, but it is a little bit complex to manage.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I use Service Bus to integrate multiple applications at an enterprise level. I work in the telecom sector and we integrate multiple applications and build PRM and CRM inventory systems. We are customers of Oracle and I'm the integration lead. 

Service Bus supports multiple protocol technologies and web services as well as file-based integration. It's very good in JMS-based integration. Nowadays, web service calls are based on SOAP and REST. Service Bus integrates well with different types of these supported protocols and systems. It's great in XML web service integration although REST and JSON formats are more in use these days. 

Service Bus lacks two main elements. The first is accessibility with the REST services and JSON. These are things that are generally available in most of the APIs address space nowadays. The second would be improved cloud compatibility. Oracle sometimes lags behind when it comes to newer formats.

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

Service Bus is quite stable. If you implement it according to the guidelines, then I think it's a very stable product and provides good performance. 

The solution does not support auto-scaling. Nowadays, you have Kubernetes for containerization. It can scale up and down based on the load and volume and is better than Service Bus. We have around 10 people using Service bus; the technical team, an engineer, and mid-level developers. 

The technical support is very helpful and generally knowledgeable. Occasionally you get someone who is less knowledgeable but most of the time, they're great.

Positive

The initial setup is relatively simple and straightforward. It's not difficult for a layman to implement, especially the cluster environment. Deployment in an enterprise-level environment requires some experience because there are some complexities. If you're implementing without having modeled the threading effectively, the service performance is reduced. It's not a product limitation, but more about how you implement it. 

The main difference I see between Service Bus and other solutions is the cloud. The newer products coming out are cloud-native. Service Bus lacks that because it was not initially on the cloud. It needs to be more cloud-native. 

This is a very stable and good product to use. It's essential to have sufficient knowledge around implementation and to deal with thread work management to get better performance. A lot comes with experience but before implementing, it's worth going to Oracle and studying the recommendations around implementation and integration. 

Some improvements are needed around some of the latest technologies and trends, so I rate this solution eight out of 10.