There are no direct users for Red Hat Fuse because it's all in the backend systems. I have three applications integrated with the solution. It's a single instance which means there are three clusters against each. There's a total of nine: three applications, three clusters with three nodes each. In a production environment, there's nine, and apart from that, there's four or five against a load environment.

In terms of user roles, I have a development team with twelve developers and a platform development team that handles the deployment and also supports production with three to four people.

My team is planning to move away from Red Hat Fuse, but the next product is from a partnership with Red Hat, particularly with new technology. My team contacted Red Hat and the suggestion was to go for OpenShift for now, and if the team decides to move to the cloud in the future, probably Red Hat has OpenShifted and could provide my team with cloud-based managed services, but for security reasons, my team is not moving to the cloud at the moment, and the Red Hat team was very open in terms of sharing the roadmap which is what my team is following. The Red Hat team was very much updated with the latest technologies and suggested to move to small containers or dockers supported by OpenShift. The Red Hat team has technology for Dockers only and there are some dockers prepared and there are some changes to the base application. My team is getting a lot of support and whatever product Red Hat is launching is also in line with new technologies, so I'm quite happy with Red Hat.

At this time, in my current role, and from the processing side, I don't see any issues with Red Hat Fuse. The only challenge was with its configuration and that it doesn't have a direct integration with the CI/CD, so you need to build different components. Otherwise, everything was good with Red Hat Fuse. For a legacy system, I'm unsure if the solution is compatible with the latest technologies or not, but for me, particularly for my application, the solution works well, so I'm rating Red Hat Fuse seven out of ten overall.

Five hundred end users utilize Red Hat Fuse in my company.

My rating for Red Hat Fuse is nine out of ten.

One of the things that we're planning to do is use Red Hat OpenShift for cloud availability because we want to take our platform to the cloud at some point in the future. We want to have more redundancy on the backend and doing so will also help us with high availability. Currently, we have almost 99.999%, but 100% is desired.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Red Hat Fuse is to have an expert SME from outside of the organization, who has done the job. When you run into roadblocks such as bugs, you want to make sure that you have that support.

If you compare other products from an open-source perspective, I would say Red Hat fits that bill. They have a lot of developers who contribute to the open-source community and it has helped us to stay on the cutting edge. It is beneficial to have open-source contributions to our solution.

If the solution is not open-source then a company will lock itself into a vendor. That means that they will get locked into pricing that only the vendor can control, versus when you have a solution that is open-source, you can always go to other competitors. That's one very big advantage.

Red Hat has good education packages and my developers can take advantage of that. We have a subscription for learning. Plus, when you have an open-source package, you are not bound by the vendors' learning resources. You can always research outside by going to the community and doing your own research. The advantage is that you are taking your questions and you are posting them out in the community and getting those answers. Sometimes, you are contributing to the community in the process.

I feel that there is more knowledge, outside of the vendors, that gets restricted. If you want IBM, then you're just focused on IBM's community. When you are outside of that, you have a bigger open-source community that helps answer your questions. There's a definite advantage to having an open-source product.

In summary, this is a great product that is scalable, stable, highly available, and has a good help desk. These are the reasons that Red Hat has been a very good solution for us and we have no complaints.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

If your integration needs are not that complex and you have plenty of time for your integration projects to go live, then you can go with this cheap ESB. It does everything that other ESBs do.

On a scale of one to 10, where 10 is best, I would rate Red Hat Fuse as seven.

Red Hat Fuse is currently deployed on-premises in our organization. We have plans to move into the cloud as well.

If you're looking for an enterprise service bus, Red Hat Fuse is one of the platforms on which you can reliably integrate. However, you need to take care of the usability part operationally. It will ensure that the business you ask for has every flexibility.

Overall, I rate Red Hat Fuse an eight out of ten.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it.

If anyone is looking for an Enterprise Service Bus solution, then Red Hat Fuse is one of the options. Also, they do have various ESB solutions.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It is always good to try something new, and it is like, you don't know what will come out of it. After using it, I realized how good the platform is, and if I see how I was when I started off five years ago and where I am today, it has definitely improved a lot and helped me a lot. Even with the scaling and performance part, it has really helped from a developer's perspective. So, it has helped us to provide improvised solutions to our end customers.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

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.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is a Red Hat version of the Apache Camel which has been discontinued. The solution will be discontinued in 2024. There are already plans to move to a different product called Camel 3.

There is not that much they can improve with the solution. They're just taking another Apache product and wrapping it up, and branding it as Red Hat, by giving the enterprise support for this version of the Open-Source product.

Michael:

From a version perspective, there is maintenance, When you need to move from one version to another. And this part, usually Red Hat is giving a good heads up and tries not to break compatibility as well. Unless they're changing the versions that are not compatible, of course, some features will not be compatible. But from an information perspective, they're giving a good heads-up and a good explanation.

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.

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.

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. 

As long as you are a Java developer, Red Hat Fuse is easier to learn than other integration solutions on the market. It's a Java framework first, making it quite easy to pick up and go.

I would rate the product an eight out of 10 overall.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I would recommend Fuse. I don't think any other ESB tool makes big difference from Fuse. Many of this tools have the same problem: to publish and secure an internal service. Many tools bring other solutions to they ecosystems in order to extend to an API Gateway/Management functionality. You could reach the same adding others Red Hat tools.

In our case it was much easier to implement a new integration on that platform than on the previous platform we had. Furthermore, it's open source, it doesn't charge us anything. The other one was a quite an expensive platform you would use in custom development. We saved money and time. Honestly, it fulfills the needs we have at the moment. 

I would give Red Hat Fuse a rating of seven out of ten.

Actually, we are doing R&D on Red Hat Fuse. We are looking to move some of our application framework to use Red Hat Fuse. But we haven't decide yet. It's still in the decision stage.

On a scale of one to ten, based on our earlier Proof of Concept, I would give Red Hat Fuse a seven. Because the Proof of Concept was done two years ago we are now going to resume again and we are now at the decision making point. We still find that we need some customization in order to meet our clients' needs. Even if it is more compliant, there are still some customizations required in order to meet our clients' requirements.

We are using the private cloud deployment model with Openshift as the provider.

I would advise those considering implementation to play with the framework. If you try to understand the philosophy behind the framework it will make it easy to use.

I would rate the solution ten out of ten.

I would recommend it to people because it is very good for starting with an ESB project. Depending on the size of the installation, it may not be necessary to use another tool. I would suggest starting with the documentation to see if it meets the requirements. I think that doing a proof of concept is a good idea because you will get a real perception of what the tool offers.

Another thing that I suggest is to try and find the connector that you want to use and make sure that it is supported by Red Hat or another company.

Overall, I think that this is a good tool. It is very versatile, although compared to other tools on the market, it doesn't have the appearance, or look and feel, of one that is very professional. You can do everything on the command line, but some people feel that it just doesn't look good. For me, agility and performance are more important than it being eye-catching.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.