Red Hat Fuse Reviews

We have Fuse installed on our on-premises servers, and we use it as an enterprise service bus for connecting different applications. For the time being, all of these applications are installed on-premises.

We also use cloud-based applications, but none of them is currently interacting with Fuse.

We try to implement third-party applications, if possible, out of the box and, if not, with minimum customization. That leaves something which is very important outside. The applications in many cases have to talk between each other and this is why we need integrations.

So, we chose Fuse to act as a membrane or glue for all of our applications to be able to interact. For that particular purpose, we hire third-party development companies that create the integrations for us, but we chose Fuse as this membrane that glues everything together because that was, when we first evaluated it, the best approach that we could select at that point in time.

The comprehensiveness of Fuse's API management is quite good, and this is important to us. From a usability standpoint, particularly for the developers that have to interact with the API, it's fairly straightforward. We don't have in-house developers. We always make use of third-party companies to develop integrations for us. We don't interact directly with the APIs. Rather, it's third-party development companies that we hire to create integrations for us.

Having said that, most of the companies that do such integration development for us, maybe half of them have experience with Fuse, and the other half who don't have experience can handle the APIs pretty well once they are exposed to them and someone explains to them how they work. These third-party companies have been working for us for maybe two or three years and have no problem at all with the APIs.

With respect to reducing our developer's dependency for integration and custom code, our situation is mixed. We rely on developers to create integrations so it has not changed in that regard. However, if we compare it to a non-enterprise service bus integration scheme then there is less dependency on developers.

At the end of the day, we rely on external developers for creating integrations and maintaining them because, of course, maintenance occurs. Businesses have changing requirements so we have to adapt those integrations. In the comparison with a non-enterprise bus scenario, we have less dependency because the alternative use case is to make these applications talk between themselves instead of to a third party that stands in the middle, such as an ESB. This approach is typically more expensive. It takes a lot of time and it requires, which is most important, that developers who know both applications talk between themselves, maybe from different companies.

In our case, when we have the situation where Application A has to maintain a dialogue with Application B through the ESB, it may have different sets of developers. One for, let's say, Company Alpha doing the maintenance for Application A and Company Beta doing maintenance on Application B. They all have to talk to the API. The two companies don't need to talk among themselves, and that is something that reduces the dependency.

There's another use case as well. Let's suppose we have these Application A and B, and we replace B with another application called C. When this happens, we don't need to rewrite the whole integration. We only need to rewrite the integration between the ESB and Application C. So, there are some advantages down the road and overall, the dependence on developers slightly diminishes.

There are a couple of examples where using Fuse has benefited us. We have three applications that are running on top of Fuse. 

With Fuse, we have been able to create a bidirectional integration between two applications in order to diminish the need for end-users to input or key in the same data into two different applications. This is what was happening before we suggested implementing a solution based on Fuse.

The benefits were immediate in the sense that there were almost zero errors because, of course, when you key in data in two different systems, chances are that you can make an error maybe in one system, maybe in the other system, maybe in both systems at the same time. When you are copying data or extracting data to Excel spreadsheets and then trying to import them into the next system, that is cumbersome. It takes a lot of time. It's manual work that can be completely avoided and the possibility of inserting errors is fairly high. So, on the data quality aspect of the equation, it has improved a lot and that was a benefit for the end-users. In our case, if we can avoid doing manual tasks, that is highly desirable. 

We have also another case where we implemented a workflow that interacts with a repository management solution. This workflow was developed from scratch because one of the companies had a solution that was written for them because there is no package in the market for their particular business.

The industry comprises a very small number of companies in the world so there are no general solutions. We have to write them from scratch. But at the same time, we already possessed a corporate document repository where all copies of invoices, purchase orders, receipts, and other documentation have to be stored for disaster recovery purposes. Ideally, what we needed to do was have these two applications interact, which is exactly what we did by employing Fuse.

We have other use cases, for example, integration between an ERP and the corporate repository. For all of these integrations, instead of being point-to-point, we are using Fuse. This means that the maintenance of those applications was reduced. In fact, next year we are planning to change our ERP solution for several group companies. All of the documentation that is generated, for example, invoices to our customers, will be created by another ERP. We will only have to rewrite the communication between the new ERP and Fuse. This will result in less time to market and that all equates to savings.

We have other similar use cases but essentially, they all involve making two different applications talk between themselves or making a certain application store things in our corporate repository.

More than a feature, I would say that the reliability of the platform is the most valuable aspect. We have several servers and it is highly resilient, it is always available, and it requires very little maintenance. Of course, when something doesn't work, it's highly complicated. Because of the nature of the applications that we interface with, the product is highly complex but it's highly reliable as well. This is why we keep using it.

The documentation for Fuse can be improved because, while it is very detailed and extensive, it is not too intuitive for someone that has to deliver some kind of troubleshooting services. In particular, for installation, re-installation, or upgrades, I find that the documentation can be improved.

In some cases, resource consumption is an issue. It depends, of course, on the amount of bandwidth, memory, CPU processing power, et cetera, that you have. But time and again, we require more resources. An improvement in this area would be desirable.

I have been working with Red Hat Fuse for the last four to five years.

It is highly stable.

Most of our use cases are about 100 users each. It works nicely for us at this scale but I can't speak about higher volumes.

We haven't had the need to access technical support very frequently. If you have good developers, you don't need too much in terms of technical support.

For the times that we have needed them, we are satisfied with the support that we received. I would rate them an eight out of ten. Nobody is perfect and when we access technical support, we need an immediate answer. Of course, troubleshooting requires time and there is a gap between our expectations and the actual time that it takes for Red Hat support to deliver the solution.

Once you are waiting for a solution, you get a little stressed because, of course, the nature of technical support is that you have a problem, and you do not know in advance how long it's going to take them to solve it because they need to understand it, and they need to replicate it. So, it depends on your eagerness to wait or not.

Overall, it's very good.

Positive

Before Fuse, we did point-to-point or one-to-one integration. We didn't have a prior solution that was replaced by Fuse.

This initial setup is complex. The installation and implementation for the first integration, and perhaps most applications and projects that you can think of, is complex. The first time, it takes longer because you don't have the experience. It's more difficult. Then, you get used to it and you know the inner workings of the tool. You learn to know what might show up at a certain time and place, but for the first implementation, it's complex overall.

The first project took slightly less than one year to implement, perhaps between nine and ten months. In that case, the project required completing the installation, as well as the creation of the first integration.

Fuse has enabled us to deliver services faster, although this is not something that happens immediately. When we chose the platform, we decided that all integrations should occur on top of Fuse, but the ROI would show itself down the road and not in the first integration. For example, the first integration takes a while, then the second and third integrations also take time. After working with the system, implementing perhaps ten integrations that are running smoothly, then you have the velocity effect showing up. It's not something that happens in the first case. It does occur but the effect is not perceived immediately.

With respect to ROI, we have seen it but not as much as we expected. This is because the cost of the product is too high, in more than one sense. It's expensive overall but it is also too expensive upfront. For example, if you have to pay a million dollars, let's suppose over 10 years, the first installment is $100K, the second installment is another $100K, and the next eight installments are all the same. This is not the same as paying $1 million dollars upfront.

Let's say you save $500,000 by the fifth year, you reach the break-even point provided you pay in 10 installments. However, you will not break even if you paid $1 million dollars upfront and you see the benefits of half a million five years down the road. This is also something that has an impact.

Of course, the licensing model requires us to pay year by year, but the implementation cost occurs particularly during the first year and that is expensive as well. Overall, with respect to ROI, it is both yes and no. We have seen some benefits, but they didn't amount to the expectations that we had.

Of course, this is very difficult to see beforehand because you will run into obstacles over time that you cannot anticipate and it tends to be more expensive. It is something that could have been better but some of the obstacles were very difficult to anticipate.

This is an expensive product. It costs a lot and although it's worth the money, the explanations that we need to give to our top executives are highly complicated. This is because the product is highly complicated when it comes to translating the benefits into money.

Regarding the licensing model, the problem with this type of product is that you are a hostage of the vendor. In this case, it's Red Hat but it could be any other. When the vendor changes its prices or the licensing model, you don't have options. You may have invested three or four years of development on the platform and if you are not satisfied with the new models, you have to accept them because the exit cost is huge.

We are not satisfied with the contracting aspect and we try to do our best but this, in general, happens with most of the software vendors. In particular, where you have either yearly subscriptions or when the product runs on the cloud. As things are, we are increasingly using both kinds of options. So, it's a sad fact but it's what happens. No matter whether we find it to our liking, we have to accept it.

Also, every renewal is complicated. In general, there are changes and the process isn't straightforward. Typically, vendors try to extract more money from the customers. I'm speaking about most of the software companies in the sense that you buy a product, use it, and you have to pay for technical support. In reality, you shouldn't have to pay for technical support. If you buy a fridge and it works, you don't buy technical support for the fridge because the fridge doesn't work or it has the risk of not working. If we need technical support, it's because the product lacks quality.

Again, I'm not talking only about Red Hat. I'm talking about any software product. The industry works in a perverse way and I can say that because I was on the other side of the counter. I worked for a world-class software company for several years and it happens the same way with all vendors. It's a problem for us as customers and the only way to change this is that agreements should be created differently, but it doesn't seem to be the case. As much as I would like this to happen, it's far away from what we can expect in the next few years. It has gone in the other direction.

We evaluated two or three other solutions.

In general, we make decisions based on three aspects. We consider the price, performance of the solution in the sense of suitability for our needs, quality of the product, et cetera, and third but not less important, comments from other users. In some cases, we consider the availability of local expertise by partners.

In the case of Red Hat, there are a lot of Red Hat partners overall but with deep knowledge of Fuse, there are very few in our region. That was something that caused us some doubt. The only factor that made us hesitate was this relative lack of availability of solution partners.

When you have very few suppliers, the price tends to be high, and maybe the response time that you need is not there because there might be, for example, a handful of technical resources of a certain vendor in your region, and they are booked for the next six months. We have encountered such difficulties, but the competition that we evaluated had also the same situation in that regard. Products such as Fuse and its competition are not widespread. You might find one Fuse implementation every hundred companies, and you can find a Red Hat Linux implementation in one of every two companies. It's obvious that you will find more Linux knowledge around than Fuse. This is how life works and you have to get used to that.

This relative shortcoming was applicable to all of the vendors because there are not too many Fuse or Fuse-like implementations overall, at least at the moment when we started, between four and five years ago.

My advice for anybody who is considering Fuse is to research the market and talk to other customers. Try to make a good business case, express the expected benefits in figures, in money, as well as the costs. Try to have an honest, upfront negotiation with Red Hat, and try to estimate what will happen during the next few years. You want to understand the growth curve that might be involved and try to find use cases that are similar to yours because no two integrations are alike.

Had we done this at the moment we chose Red Hat, we might have not changed our decision but we might have been more confident. Of course, we didn't have that evaluation done at that point in time. We have no regrets, but this is what I would suggest to a friend that asks me how to proceed in this case.

Overall, this is a very good solution. The product quality is high. It's slightly complex upfront, but it's highly reliable. It has very good availability. It generates very few problems once you configure it properly. Of course, the configuration must be done carefully. As I mentioned, documentation could be improved and for small-scale implementations such as us, it works fine. I couldn't comment on large-scale implementations in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of users because it's not what we have explored. Our implementations are smaller, but I could give a thumbs up to the solution, of course, considering its quality and what it delivers to cover our needs.

In summary, this is a good product and other than our comments about the documentation and resource consumption, we are really satisfied.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Fuse is mostly used for integration, where you have different sets, different APIs: northbound and southbound, and you just integrate them, so Apache Camel and Red Hat Fuse become an ESB container.

The features I found most valuable in Red Hat Fuse are the OSB framework, containerization, and the integration of Apache technologies such as the NQ channel, CXF, etc. These are the features that are very prominent in the solution.

Red Hat Fuse also offers flexibility, so it's another valuable characteristic of the solution.

What could be improved in Red Hat Fuse is the deployment process because it's still very heavy. It's containerized, but now with Spring Boot and other microservices-related containers, deployment is still very heavy. Red Hat Fuse still has room for improvement in terms of becoming more containerized and more oriented.

As we work with containers, it takes about a minute or so. Red Hat Fuse is much faster than the traditional web application server, but it's much slower than the latest modern technologies such as Spring Boot, so there could still be some improvement there.

Red Hat Fuse also doesn't have a UI navigator and a UI-based workforce filter, and though those are all external, they could help improve Red Hat Fuse.

An additional feature we'd like to see in the next release of Red Hat Fuse is the UI resource wizard that would allow us to easily drag and drop tools. They should have a UI-based wizard where we can just drag and drop connectors, connect them, and do the graphics. We can always do coding for deeper requirements, but having a no-code, local setup in Red Hat Fuse, where we can drag, drop and build our workflows, connection instances, and services, and also design an entire workflow would be a good addition to the solution.

I've been using Red Hat Fuse for ten years. It used to be JBoss Fuse before it became Red Hat Fuse.

The scalability of Red Hat Fuse is fine. We didn't encounter any problems with the scalability of the solution. Within the controls of realism and with all the concurrent connections that are allowed, Red Hat Fuse does fairly well. We did some limited automated testing of concurrent pockets which were allowed, and it was pretty decent.

We required the help of the technical support team for Red Hat Fuse for a couple of projects. We had support licenses, particularly the enterprise version. We reached out to their technical support and they responded. On a scale of one to five, with one being bad and five being excellent, I'm rating support a four.

We've worked with IBM Integration Bus, and switching over to Red Hat Fuse depends on the customers and their preferences. One of the reasons for switching is that being open source has a bigger advantage, especially because you just need support licenses to move to the enterprise version, and won't really need to get enterprise level licenses. That made Red Hat Fuse more affordable versus IBM or any other ESB tool.

Another reason for switching is Red Hat Fuse is built over Apache technology, so it is very well supported. Camel CXS and other similar solutions are pretty well known and there's lot of community support or developer support around those products.

As containers are built on top of products such as Red Hat Fuse, the solution also becomes very usable.

The initial setup for Red Hat Fuse was a little bit complex, especially when compared with Spring Boot. Though there was a little bit of complexity involved during the setup of Red Hat Fuse, it was still manageable. The setup for the solution was okay.

We did a generic deployment for Red Hat Fuse in-house. We didn't use a third party for deployment, but I'm not sure if we'll need to work with one if we have to deploy the solution in a microservice architecture with one service per container, or how we'll go about doing it. That is something that we never figured out, but now that there's a requirement for deploying Red Hat Fuse in a microservice architecture which is something that we have not seen so far, we have to decide on how we'll go about it.

Our customers have seen ROI from Red Hat Fuse. We deployed the solution for our customers, and they've experienced a reduction in their total cost of ownership of Red Hat Fuse.

My company pays for the license of Red Hat Fuse yearly. At the end of the day, it's a low-cost solution, and its support licenses are still very decently priced versus bigger operators such as IBM, etc. Red Hat Fuse is much more affordable than other solutions. On a scale of one to five, with one being cheap and five being extremely expensive, I'm rating its pricing a one.

My company is using multiple versions of Red Hat Fuse for multiple customers.

My company provides Red Hat Fuse services to customers. At least four or five customers use it. As for the maintenance of the solution, once it is in production, only one person is required to handle maintenance. It depends on the SLA, but Red Hat Fuse is not that maintenance-heavy. It doesn't require much maintenance.

I'm recommending Red Hat Fuse to others because it's affordable and it's built on top of technology that is pretty popular and well supported.

I'm rating Red Hat Fuse eight out of ten. It's resourceful, has a  pretty decent performance, is built on popular technology, and it's very affordable.

My company is both a customer and an integration partner of Red Hat Fuse.

Mostly it's combined with API management. It is for API management switches as well as the USB portions. We are using mostly email-based USB portion but we are hosting our API so in terms of exposing the API, it had been used for API management. 

The key portion, for now, is mostly under API management software. It's for the publishing of APIs then pulling the security.

It was pretty effective in aligning the software. We also like containerization capabilities. We're interested in how this container technology will develop. We're interested in the cloud and how it will develop. We're integrating a lot of things towards that end and Red Hat is helping us effectively move that way. It's opening up the prospect for more capabilities. 

The stability has been good.

The solution can scale. 

There is definitely a bit of a learning curve. We're still on the learning curve now and still trying to figure things out. We might be understaffed to really take advantage of the solution. 

We started deploying the solution in 2020.

The old version was stable. Not everything is out in the newer version, and we haven't yet started running the newer version, however, we haven't had any issues with the performance or reliability. 

It's scalable. It's been running on the container platform and if you need to create the load to have more nodes running, it's not a problem.

The pace of adding users is slow. Our developer license only covers 15 people. In terms of the business case, we haven't pushed out the API yet. That said, we do have 15 licenses for development, maintenance, and production.

The initial setup can be complex, especially, if, like us, a company is trying to learn and understand the system. We ended up getting outside assistance. 

The deployment is taking longer than anticipated. We had planned it to be nine months and we've had a lot of delays in the project start. We're kind of disappointed it's now 2022 and the solution was appointed at the end of 2020. It's been a year and four months or so of implementing it.  

We've had an implementation partner on the Red hat side as there is a bit of a learning curve and we're still trying to work things out. 

We are paying around $24 million across five years. 

We're a customer. 

We are not using the most up-to-date version.

I would advise new users to understand the whole thing is an investment that will start to look at digitization and the underlying technology to make it easy to create and develop digitization strategies. It's a good idea to start with the integration platform that can be available and that you can really step in through to think API-wise in terms of maybe early development and management. For us, even with a delay in the implementation of the technology, it will be available for future things. We're setting ourselves up for the future for now. 

While it's still new to us, in terms of the API management and what we've experienced so far, I would rate it eight out of ten. The delays have not necessarily been the fault of Red Hat, and more so of the company, which is working with limited resources.

Our company provides IT services. Some of the projects that we do are integration projects and we use Fuse to help customers solve their integration problems.

In our latest project, we integrated one legacy system with a new system they were implementing. We used Red Hat Fuse and AMQ to solve the integration situation. One system did not have a modern API, and the only thing exposed as integration points were database tables. The other system had more options, but to connect it to the database interface, we decided to implement a Fuse application to translate things and make it reusable and modular. 

It's deployed on-prem, as a stand-alone, on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, with an AMQ master sight configuration and two clustered Fuse nodes.

Because it was relatively easy to get set up, it saved us a lot of time in building the solution. 

In terms of functionality, it's influencing a key piece of integration, one that actually allows our company to operate. It makes possible a core part of our business.

The most valuable part of Fuse is the fact that it's based on Red Hat Apache Camel. It is really good that it already comes with so many different connectors. That makes it relatively easy to use. We use their XML definition to define the routes, making it really easy to define the routing.

Because Apache Camel is widely used, it was quite easy to find examples for use cases that are similar to ours. We were able to get it set up and do a proof of concept quite easily, without relying on the external consultants too much. The fact that we could download it with the developer license and set up a test environment and try things out, before we committed to purchasing an actual subscription, was also very helpful in getting us set up quickly. 

Some of the official Red Hat documentation could be improved a little bit. It was a little difficult to find exactly what I was looking for. I was eventually able to find it. It's there, but it was hard to find. 

It might help if, in the documentation, there were a comments section or some kind of community input. I might read a page of documentation and not fully understand everything, or it might not quite answer the question I had. If there were a section associated with it where people could discuss the same topic, that might be helpful because somebody else might have already asked the question that I had.

We deployed Fuse on JBoss EAP and the user interface could be improved with some type of dashboarding. That would be useful because, when we got it set up, there wasn't anything that we could readily just turn on to monitor its performance. It turned out there actually was, and I eventually found it, but it wasn't quite handy. It would have been really great if, as part of deploying Fuse on JBoss EAP, we could easily get to measuring performance and have the ability to monitor things, without having to dive into configuration or to deploy other stuff.

I used it from 2018 through to April of this year. I will likely start using it again in the next month or two, as part of my consulting work for the IT services company I work for. We use Red Hat Fuse with Red Hat AMQ.

It's been very stable. Since we put it into production, there really haven't been any issues. It has been reliable.

It's very scalable. We haven't had to utilize its full potential. While I was using it, I found out about the possibility of containerizing it. That seems great. In the future, I think I'll continue to use it in other projects. For our use case, we didn't need to employ all of that, partly because the organization that we were doing the project for wasn't ready, and their infrastructure wasn't ready. But I'd rate it as very scalable.

I believe we used Red Hat technical support once because we were using the partner. My impression at the time was that it was a good experience, but the response was not as fast as I would've liked.

Positive

This is the first integration solution we have used.

Once I understood how to do it, it was straightforward. You just download EAP, start it up, download Fuse, build an application, and deploy onto it. Those things are quite easy to do, but there were some fundamental knowledge gaps that I had to close, before I could do that. When I first got started using Red Hat Fuse, I hadn't been really deep into the open source Java ecosystem. I was familiar with bits of it, but there were some things it seems they assume you know, things that help you set it up easily. 

It's hard to measure exactly what our deployment time was because we've made a bunch of improvements along the way. But from the time we decided to use it until we got a proof of concept set up—a minimum viable product—was about a month.

It would have been helpful if there were a prerequisite list, along the lines of: in order to use this, you need to know these concepts. Once I got the prerequisites, it took me a month to download it, find some examples, do a little tweaking, build a simple application, put it up, and do a basic test.

We did engage a Red Hat partner a little bit, Section6, to refine the design by designing some of the finer parts of it.

Our experience with Section6 was mostly good. Some of them were ex-Red Hat employees. They were professional. They knew what they were talking about, although there were varying levels of experience within their team. Some of them were really great and some of them were not as great. But overall, the experience was good.

We looked into MuleSoft a little bit. After doing some Googling and comparisons, the main standouts were MuleSoft and Red Hat Fuse.

One of the big factors in our decision to go with Fuse was the licensing cost. It was cheaper to go with Fuse. And from a developer and system architecture point of view, I liked Red Hat better because it is open source. There were a lot of examples online, and there was a wider ecosystem. I could pick and choose among all of the possibilities and the different projects that Red Hat was managing. I liked that part of it. An aspect of that had to do with containerization. I could see that, in the future, it would be really easy to put things together and evolve the solution later, if necessary.

My advice to somebody looking into this product would be: Be prepared to do a lot of reading. But the tool is quite flexible and quite powerful.

We primarily use the solution in financial operations and banking. 

The solution has improved the way our company works on a variety of levels. 

Overall, it is a very, very good platform.

The support training that comes with the product is amazing. 

There are a lot of engineers that know the platform. In Argentina, it's very popular.

It offers a very simple setup.

The capabilities it has to integrate and communicate with other systems are impressive.

We have not found we are missing any features. 

While it's a good platform, the pricing is a bit high.

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

The solution is quite stable. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

We have about 100 to 150 users on the product right now. We do plan to increase usage in the future. 

Technical support has been very good in general.

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The solution is very straightforward and simple to set up. It's not overly complicated or complex. 

I'd rate the overall ease of deployment at a three out of five. We deployed over the course of one year.

For maintenance, we have two or three people that can handle anything related to that. We don't need any more than that. 

We have a reseller consultant who can assist with the initial setup.

We've absolutely seen an ROI.

The solution is fairly expensive. It's more suited for enterprise-level companies and not necessarily small or medium-sized ones. You do need to pay a bit more to handle consulting and implementation. 

We did look into OpenShift before choosing this solution. OpenShift required us to integrate with other solutions. 

I'm not sure which exact version of the solution I'm using.

We are a Red hat partner. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It's a solid, stable platform.

We are mainly using it for integration with external solutions. The interface is satisfactory. Mainly, we are using a few integrations with Red Hat Fuse, specifically on OpenShift. Because recently, they renamed it.

The AMQ strings are the most valuable. Also, it's Apache Camel compliant. There are a lot of components, but one component, in particular, stands out.

The testing part, specifically when running it in the cloud, could be improved. It's a little bit complex, especially considering its cloud nature. 

Apache Camel has many components that are challenging as well. For example, Apache Camel K is difficult to test because they are dedicated to cloud infrastructure.

We have been using this solution for over six years. We are using the latest versions.

It is stable. We didn't have any issues with stability. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business. 

The customer service and support team is good. We didn't require any specific support for this solution. But I had one issue ticket, and the response time was quick. 

Positive

From my point of view, the installation of Red Hat Fuse is relatively easy. You just need to open OpenShift Operators and install it. It's easy to install.

We have it on the cloud. OpenShift is considered a cloud product, although we have it installed in our own data centers. It's like a private cloud.

The deployment depends on what you are installing and configuring. But typically, it can be done in a matter of hours. For end-to-end things like Kafka, it depends on how you install it because it requires a specific kind of storage. It's not difficult to install Kafka, but you need to prepare the storage beforehand.

If you don't need very high performance, you can do it in less than one hour. But if you want to have highly performant storage, it takes more time to prepare the storage.

In our project, I deployed the solution. However, maintenance depends on what you install and configure. If you have any issues, it's possible to involve some maintenance. If there are changes in your application or business model, you may need to adjust some parameters, like Kafka topics, for example. In general, the only maintenance I do is to update to a new version.

Maintenance is very application specific and how you evaluate them in terms of settings.

It is a good price. It is not expensive. We have a yearly-based license. There are no additional costs to the standard license. 

From my point of view, it's a very good option, especially if you are considering a flexible integration approach. It can be run on-premises or in the cloud, but running it in the cloud is the right choice, in my opinion.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

Our customers have APIs and they develop them while we are using the gate for the code changes. They commit with the help of Jenkins so we pull that service and install that service on Jabber's use. After that, we create an ACL for that service and the rest is on the web server.

When we access the container, it crashes and then we have to kill that container, restart, and log in again. The solution should work on preventing this. 

In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall.

I have been using this solution for the last four years.

My opinion is that this solution is stable. Red Hat Fuse has some dependencies, so we are resolving them one by one.

My impression is that this solution is scalable. Currently, we are working with one customer.

The initial setup process is quite straightforward. We are using a standard setup. When it comes to deployment, I just spent four or five years doing the setup, but it can take as much as eight or 10 years.

All nodes will be deployed on VMware and not on a cloud solution.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

We use the solution to transform messages and integrate with backend systems for an ESB.

We're a solution integrator, so we provide solutions to our customers. 

The solution is deployed on-premises, but we might move to the cloud version. We're one version behind the latest version.

The integration layer handles all of the complexity, which results in faster implementations.

It's very lightweight. There's no need for any specialized tools in order to deploy any service for Red Hat Fuse.

The monitoring experience should be better. I would like the ability to monitor the flows and be able to retrieve runtime information about their execution. The UI could also be improved.

I have used this solution for six years.

We've had minor issues in the past, but they have been resolved.

The solution is fully scalable.

The support is excellent. We are very pleased with them.

Initial setup is very straightforward.

The solution is containerized, so deployment is quite easy. Deployment can be fully automated.

It's not difficult to maintain.

Our customers have seen ROI from using this solution.

The cost is quite competitive compared to other solutions.

We use the standard license, but you need the container platform in order to run it.

I would rate the pricing as eight out of ten.

I would rate the solution as nine out of ten.

My advice is that the solution is geared toward developers and not a citizen designer. It's not for people who want to be able to do integrations using a low code environment.