Oracle Service Bus Reviews

The middleware provides the service from our core banking and manages the equipment from the satellite system to the core banking SMS or to any other system. Any system can communicate to another system through the solution.

The most valuable feature is the monitoring feature, where we can track the web's UI development.

The tracing. Some unknown errors will sometimes happen and the error message isn't clear. The security process to protect the servers also needs improvement. Sometimes, you need to open the whole project and complete another setup in the server, then hurry back and go through the service application to complete the security setup. If Oracle SB had one button to complete this process in one step, it would be better.

For the next update, I'd like to see event-driven architecture.

I've been using Oracle Service Bus for five years.

The solution is stable.

It's easy to scale mostly from the Oracle side. We added another node in the cluster but we haven't yet tried it.

When we've contacted support, they haven't always resolved the issue. We've then tried from our end to find a workaround and ended up finding a solution.  Their support service could be improved.

The setup was simple and deployment was managed on my own. It took only a few minutes.

I would give this solution a seven out of ten. My advice is to be aware of the amount of space to collect all the requirements because sometimes, maintenance on existing setups can rebuild the servers from the beginning.

The solution is primarily used for the ESB. When we want to integrate applications with each other, they want to communicate with each other, we use this. If one application wants to send a message to some other applications. It's used for transformation and integration.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is very good. 

The installation is quite straightforward. 

We've been pleased with the level of technical support.

The pricing of the product could be better. It's a bit high.

We started using the solution around 2014. We've used it for quite a few years now. It's been a while. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

Due to the fact that the solution is technical, there are not that many people on it. We are only a few specialized people that work on this ESB. In development, there are around five to seven people. They are a mix of engineers, managers, and admins.

Technical support has been good. We're satisfied with the level of service on offer. 

The initial setup is very straightforward and simple. It's not overly complex or difficult to implement.

In our systems, we install it for our local development. It's easy for us. It takes minutes to install it. The deployment process is quick.

We have five or six technical people that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks.

The pricing could be better.

We pay for the solution on a yearly basis. 

The product is a part of the Fusion Middleware. We have the full suite including the SOA and WebLogic.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

If a company wants to go to the Oracle stack, I'd recommend this solution. If a company wants to use it, it should first evaluate their requirements and whether they need to expand or if they have the capacity.

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.

We use the solution for message processing. 

From a technical perspective, the interface is fine and the solution is quite robust.

There are several improvements that could be made to the product. Security needs to be more integrated, there are so many new security techniques on the market that could be integrated. They should also be embedding API key and other security mechanisms. I find the solution to be somewhat lightweight. 

The solution is scalable although sometimes there is a memory bottleneck and the solution crashes. 

I carried out the deployment and it took a maximum of two hours. We have five users and one specialist who deals with maintenance. 

To choose this solution would depend on company priorities. If someone is looking for a highly scalable solution with security features embedded there are many other options available. If the case scenario is a customer who is already using Oracle Stack and has a good relationship with Oracle then I would recommend OSB if they can survive with the built-in security model. I would definitely recommend it for some customers.

I rate this product seven out of 10. 

We are currently primarily using the solution for an energy company that is looking to remove the endpoint integration that they have. They want to move to an Applications Federation BOT. That's how we are seeing critical severity loss into the solution. Instead of having the point-to-point integration, we want to implement it as an Enterprise Service Bus.

The solution is quite stable overall. We haven't witnessed any performance issues so far.

The features on offer are very complete. It's a very good product overall.

I can't recall coming across any missing features. There isn't anything glaring that is lacking in the product.

The initial setup is likely complex for many organizations.

In terms of the solution itself, they should be more open with the information that they provide about the licensing process. It's incredibly difficult to understand the licensing for Oracle Service Bus and it's a whole long process to get the information from Oracle itself. 

This is a very stable solution. Mostly it's focused on attending companies with high availability. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable.

We have about ten users engaged in the solution currently.

It's my understanding that the solution isn't straightforward. It's actually quite complex.

The setup and onboarding process is hard, and it's made more difficult by a murky licensing process that needs to be clarified.

The licensing process needs to be simplified. It's confusing and tedious. It's very hard to get concrete details out of Oracle in a timely manner. It would be ideal if they could be more exact and specific.

I'm not a customer. I represent a company in charge of integrating solutions for customers, specifically for our customers. We're a partner and implementor.

In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. Even with the difficulties around licensing, the solution itself is quite good and reliable.

I am a part of the software developing team and I mainly use this solution for the integrating applications.

The features most valuable are all of the features relating to the integration of applications.

The connectivity with the solution is an area that needs to be improved. On occasion, requests are lost due to losing connectivity. 

Also, there should be proper monitoring of what is coming into and going out of the Service bus and it should be logged. 

Every request should be logged.

Technical support on the Oracle site needs improvement. When we have an issue, we create an SR for Oracle. The read the request, but they do not respond properly. When creating the SR, they ask for a lot of information from us. The requested information is provided to them but still, a solution is not provided.

It would be a benefit to have proper instruction on the different types of configuration or to have an example or suggestion for different types of Scenarios and how to configure them.

I would like the configuration information provided to us.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

The solution is stable.

We have a lot of customers and we have several enterprise applications.

This solution is scalable. We can add to it and we have multiple interfaces. 

We have a lot of users, although I am not sure how many.

We have a team of thirty people working and maintaining this solution. Some are developers and some are part of the administrative team.

The technical support is good.

Technical support on the Oracle site is not as good, sometimes we will get our issues resolved but not always.

It may not be for others but I feel that the initial setup is straightforward. It is not complex. 

Once I put in a request and it is approved by a manager, it takes ten to fifteen minutes to deploy.

We deploy both on-premises and Cloud. It's a private company cloud, not public.

Oracle a good product. It can be used for the integration of this solution.

I have only received positive feedback for this solution. The features are good. It's sufficient for us.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using Oracle Service Bus to connect between API management and microservices. For example, we use it for data transformation, bringing data from a specific form in one service to another form in a different service.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that you can connect with different applications.

I had a problem with one of my projects because OSB cannot send cookies to the RESTful services.

This solution should work better with RESTful services.

I have been working with Oracle Service Bus for two years.

This solution is stable.

We have four developers who are using this solution.

The technical support for this solution is not very good. I have not been able to get problems resolved because I do not have a professional account. The support is not very useful for developers.

Prior to using Oracle Service Bus, I was using webMethods Integration Server, by AG.

It was not my decision to switch and I am comfortable working with either of these solutions.

webMethods is very easy to use but it does not offer the same level of capability for personalizing your development. With respect to ease of use, for data transformation in OSB, we had to write a function but with webMethods it was just a drag and drop.

The initial setup is not complex. It takes less than one minute to deploy.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to study the architecture that they want to implement very well. That way, they won't have to have repeated flows that do the same work.

I would rate this solution a seven 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.