cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Async Abstract MI with Comm Channels instead of Outbound/Inbound MI

Former Member
0 Kudos

In the config directory, creating a Receiver Determination asks for the sender system, interface, and namespace, right? If using a business system/service, then once you pull up the list for the interface and namespace, only outbound interfaces are displayed (or IDOCs). Similarly, when creating the receiver agreement, only inbound interfaces are listed. When creating agreements around integration processes, only abstract interfaces are listed.

Now, why is it that you can ignore the lists and use abstract interfaces for system senders and receivers if no mapping is applied going into or coming out of integration processes? That is, the sender agreement uses the same abstract interfaces as the BPM. Or the abstract interface coming out of the BPM is used in the sender agreement. Even though this is allowed, is it discouraged? Is this something that might not work in the future? Working with NW04 (not s).

TIA.

Tim

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

moorthy
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

In simpler words

Sender Agreement is used to bind the channel with message interface. So it has direction ie inbound our outbound.

But Abstract Interface does not has direction. It is used only in BPM..

Rgds,

moorthy

prabhu_s2
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

is ur post is regrading y the abs interface are also listed in the sender agreement selection?....