Version by Namespace or Software Component Version..??

[Former Member]

Hi all,

I would appreciate some input regarding the following issue:

How should I manage the changes that eventually will occur relating to a specific Software Component Version..??

Our Company is currently upgrading our XI from 2.0 to 3.0 and the setup we used in 2.0 whenever there was a change to one of the Interfaces was to create a new SWCV and reuse the existing namespace relating to the previous SWCV. To my knowledge you could also do your 'Version Management' by keeping the same SWCV and just create a new Namespace to handle your changes..??

What is the best setup relating to this issue..??

Thanks

Peter

[frank_beunings · Accepted solution]

Hi Peter,

if the interface does only change in a compatible way (i.e. only new fields) and the functionality still does the same, I would recommend to keep name and namespace same.

If you dramatically change the interface that for example all mappings are no longer valid, I would recommend to change the namespace or name.

The Background is that if you keep name & namespace, your configuration will still be valid for 'old' and 'new' messages wich are sent - as long as you make sure that all payload-dependent configurations can still work (e.g. content-based routing or your mapping programs).

regards, Frank

[Former Member]

Hi Peter,

SWCs should not be created in a new version just because the contents changes. Normally a new SWCV would be driven by a new product version of the product it belongs to. New interface versions within the same (legacy) product version should be modeled by namespaces.

In our naming conventions we have therefore extended each ns by a version number like 100 for version 1.0. Now if a minor change occurs, we add 10, so after a minor change we would have version 110 and for major changes we add 100 so it would be 200.

A sample namespace following our conventions would be http://company.com/xi/LEGACYABBREVIATION/MaterialMaster/100. After a minor change http://company.com/xi/LEGACYABBREVIATION/MaterialMaster/110 and after a major one http://company.com/xi/LEGACYABBREVIATION/MaterialMaster/200.

best regards

Christine

[Former Member]

Hi Frank and Christine,

Thank you both for your answers. I think we will go for the solution suggested by Christine in order to secure a easy naming convention. It's a QA company requirement to ensure traceability whenever we make changes in our systems and this can easily be done in R/3. I really miss the R/3 transport system in XI..:-))

Thanks - Peter