Point-to-point Vs 1-to-n scenario using XI- Architecture qtn

[Former Member]

Hi All,

If we want to avoid p-p interfaces using XI, do we keep secnario like

If we have e sources, reciving similar info, but with different cannonical, and going to target(SAP) as one IDOC.

Receiver determination ?

1. S1-XI(XI As bsuiness system), S2- XI(XI As bsuiness system), S3-XI(XI As bsuiness system) and then XI-SAP(IDOC) ?

or

2. S1-SAP, S2-SAP, S3-SAP ? if this is the case, how do u justify it is not point-point

3. S1-BPM,S2-BPM, s3-BPM, and thenBPM-SAP is possible, but want to avoid BPM ?

Thanks

[moorthy]

Hi Kumar,

It is not mandatory to have different structurs in the Source and Target or etc..

If you use XI, you can avoid point-to-point communications and it will be very good.

-It will reduce maintenance cost drastically.

-Good Monitoring capability

-Alert Notification etc..

Other questions are not very clear..

Hope this helps..

Regards,

Moorthy

[Former Member]

Hi,

I understand xi reduces TCO, but technically if u look at if u have want to reduce no of sources to go thru xi to finally one interface to SAP

S1-XI, S2-XI, s3-XI ( these three similar cannonical with slight change)

XI-SAP ( above 3 fit into one type of idoc interface)

to avoid p-p, which one correct way of doing and is good fit ?

1. S1-XI(business service XI)

S2-XI(business service XI)

S3-XI(business service XI)

and then one interface XI-SAP

OR

2. S1-SAP (via XI, here receiver determination is taking sender source S1 to SAP )

S2-SAP (via XI, here receiver determination is taking sender source S2 to SAP )

S3-SAP (via XI, here receiver determination is taking sender source S3 to SAP )

2nd scenarion, it is still kind of Point-point ?

OR

3. S1-BPM

S2-BPM

S3-BPM

and then one interface BPM-SAP

which one is correct way of doing and why?

[Former Member]

Hi Kumar,

I think, that none of your solutions is the best one, as you add one additional step which is not necessary (business service, BPM).

Think about this solution: You can use a canonical with a mapping sequence in the interface mapping, so your second step in the sequence will always be canonical to SAP and the first step will depend on the sender. With that approach there is no need for an additional business service or BPM unless you've got additional requirements which can't be covered by the normal processing.

However there will always be the question what you define as canonical. Could be it is pretty much like the SAP message (IDoc, RFC), could be it is an independent XML format (possibly industry standard).

However the best way of doing an interface depends on so many different things, that this is only a theoretical discussion. Remember that when designing an actual interface you might come across circumstances where you might not stick to the theoretical best way to do something.

Regards

Christine

[Former Member]

Christine/Kumar~

Pbm with mapping the structures through a independent XML XML standard is if we end up designing heavy dataload scenarios, you will typically find a 100-200 field XML message floating on ur network while intention would be to map perhaps 20-30 odd fields, clogging the bandwidth.

So decision should also take into consideration the process complexity, data mapping constraints, number of fields to be mapped..!!etc

The above mentioned issues with designing integration scenarios on a CIM data model was also one of the prime reasons for failure of products like UAN.So ultimately the architecture drives the design decision!! Not other wise

[Former Member]

My argument is EAI is Hub and spoke model, and that avoid point-to-point interfaces, so if sap is receiving the same message from two different recievers in different cannonical form and coming to sap as one idoc (assume mapping is simple)

how could u do this hub and skope scenario?

do u define sender1-xi-sap and add one more sender2-xi-sap , it will be two different interfaces ?