AIF vs PI

[Former Member]

Experts,

Need your two cents on this. There is a new tool from SAP called Application Integration Framework (AIF). Its an add on to existing SAP system to assist with reprocessing of failed messages by business users. But thats not where the question is. Question is on the other functionality that it provides which overlaps with PI. To be specifc, AIF has capabilities to do structure mapping, value mapping, field checks etc. So then the question becomes, should mapping be all done in AIF and let PI only handle the connectivity to various systems? Has anyone implemented AIF for mapping functionality? If so, what was your experience and how does it compare against PI? I have heard claims that this tool can reduce development costs by upto 40% and monitoring costs by upto 75%. But I have my doubts so wanted to validate if AIF is really a miracle pill that can eliminate all PI mapping for interfaces that are inbound or outbound from SAP or is it overhyped?

Thanks.

[agasthuri_doss]

Jignesh,

>>So then the question becomes, should mapping be all done in AIF and let PI only handle the connectivity to various systems?

No, Mapping will be done in SAP PI

>>so wanted to validate if AIF is really a miracle pill that can eliminate all PI mapping for interfaces that are inbound or outbound from SAP

No

Cheers

Agasthuri

[Former Member]

@Luis, Thank you. Yes I have checked the AIF link but that doesnt really help clarify SAP's position on which tool (AIF or PI) should be used since they now came up with overlapping functionalities. Nor there is any official position paper out there.

@Prateek. Thanks for your response. AIF 2.0 can support IDOC based interfaces as well in addition to proxy. But I agree, paying two different licensing costs for these products isnt the most optimal way to put it out there - unless, SAP clarifies its position saying AIF's primary and probably the only most useful function is the ability to empower business users to do monitoring and reprocess any failed messages owing to data failures etc.

I am still hoping other experts would chime in on their experience with mapping functionality in AIF. Even though AIF is capable of providing some mapping capabilties, it wouldnt make sense to go thru 20 different screens and write 100 lines of code in ABAP on what can be done using drag-and-drop in PI. But thats just my take.

Thanks!

[Former Member]

Hi Jingesh:

I have been fortunate enough to participate in the acceptance testing of SAP AIF 2.0 this past summer. Previously, I have developed a framework similar to AIF. The main reason for these framework is to eliminate the development from scratch. The framework provides a solid basis set of tools to develop a consistent interface development approach. Increased quality in less time,and the advantage that more people can maintain a large number of interfaces. The differences between interfaces will be more on the business content, rather than the way conversion, mapping and monitoring is being handled.

SAP AIF has been in development since 2006 and it was great to work with the development team to explore different use cases. The monitoring side is very exciting feature, because it brings transactional monitoring to the end users in operations. This enables issue resolution at a level that is otherwise elevated to IT.

The monitoring is made possible through the standardization of the interface process. The amount of business scenarios that are currently enabled is impressive. Besides the use of the Proxy and the IDoc persistence, you can now also the SAP AIF persistence, which opens a lot of possibilities for custom development/enhancement.

When minimal technology footprint is a goal, you can complete the entire interface development in SAP AIF, mapping included.

New in AIF 2.0 is the Interface Builder where you do the mapping. The mapping component is very intuitive and contains drag and drop functionality. The value mapping can be attached within the same user interface and is reusable across different interface namespaces, which increases reusability. The only coding that you would do is your own mapping or validation components. Although value mapping is possible in PI, the recommendation is to bring mapping into the business systems.  This is where the users live who maintain the mapping.

Depending on the complexity of your integration environment, you could consider combining SAP AIF and PI. SAP AIF can for instance be responsible for the canonical data model, while PI is responsible for the communication with the outside world and format conversion. Example: you have one interface type moving the same data to different external vendors using different format and protocols. You might use PI as an extra security layer or buffer with the outside world.

Obviously, a lot of this design depends on the requirements of the integration landscape. Security, internal technology requirements, but also the technology of your suppliers and vendors plays an important role. Not to forget, the skill sets that are available within your organization.

To me, one of the most important benefits of the interface development component of SAP AIF, is the unification of the interface approach. The reusable aspects, such as mapping, validation and monitoring are all standardized. This allows you to boost the quality of interfaces without increasing the effort to develop them.

Hope this helps?

Frank.

[Former Member]

Franks. Yes it helps. thanks for your detailed response. Regarding your point "When minimal technology footprint is a goal, you can complete the entire interface development in SAP AIF, mapping included.", I am not sure if AIF can help with reducing the technology footprint since one would still need PI (or any other middleware) to make the connectivity to other non-SAP systems. So it doesnt help replace any technology. Its more like an additional technology on top of existing ones. There is no separate licensing fee for mapping functionality in PI. So if someone is investing in PI, (s)he might as well use it for all its worth (rather than using it to just making the connectivity). However, I agree with cost savings in monitoring space though achived by distributing the task vs a centralized team handling it. We can do that by moving checks and validations out of PI (not necessarily entire mapping) and let AIF handle it. But like you said, lot of this depends on the integration landscape.

Thanks again for your input.

Jignesh

[Former Member]

You're welcome. Thanks for the points!

PS: I agree with you on the footprint. When you already have PI, there is no basis for eliminating PI/Middleware.

[prateek]

AIF is meant for monitoring and mapping is only one of it's functionality. I don't think that it can replace all mapping capabilities of PI when PI supports graphical (easy to implement), java and xslt mapping. The mapping between the source and target system formats should stay in a middleware and not in AIF residing at ECC. AIF mapping can replace value mappings in PI very well and probably some lookups. Also, I guess the current AIF functionality is limited to Proxy based interface (not sure).

You also have to note that AIF requires a separate license (which I don't support personally). Therefore a licensed tool for performing connectivity and another licensed tool for mapping doesn't sound very convincing for customers.

Having said that, I agree that it can reduce the monitoring cost significantly in long run.

Regards,

Prateek Raj Srivastava

[Former Member]

Hi.

Have you ever checked this?

http://scn.sap.com/docs/DOC-26417