cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Strategies for organising SWCVs and dependencies

Former Member
0 Kudos

I would love to know the opinions of the Gurus out there regarding these considerations.

1) Creating separate SWCV for cross component processing?

Precondition in Repository: Let's say two third party applications have their respective message interfaces defined in two already existing SWCVs.

Question: Now we want to establish some communication between these two applications, and we will require mappings that reference interfaces in both SWCVs. We can place these mappings in either:

- SWCV of app. 1

- SWCV of app. 2

- a new SWCV created just for this purpose

I know the "rule of thumb" saying that mappings should be placed in the target SWCV. I do find this approach a bit problematic because my mappings (facilitating a certain business flow) will now be spread into two different SWCVs. If I for instance make changes or replace one application, then I have to go and "clean up" in many different places.

I find it a lot cleaner to define a new SWCV in which to place the required mappings. This way, objects that are related to a certain business process are kept together.

What do you think about this approach? Is it recommendable for large scale setups? If not - why? Does it matter that such a SWCV is not installed on any system?

I feel this question burning even more intensely when it comes to ccBMP: The Integration Process is essentially a cross application concept, and therefore I really don't want to place it in the SWCV of any single application. (The business process will remain long term, while applications may be replaced on the shorter term).

2) Dependencies - any side-effects?

In scenarios as described above, it is possible to set up SLD dependencies, so that the specially created SWCV has dependencies on the SWCVs containing the interfaces of the two applications.

The really nice effect is that the required objects appear in "basis objects" - really nice! But...

Is it safe to follow this strategy for dependencies? Are there any side-effects outside of the Repository? (e.g. how things are eventually transported, shipped, or any other things)

Any comments are highly appreciated. Apologies for the long-winded posting... the answers are hopefully shorter than the question

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Jorgen,

really short answer: i think both approaches are valid. It is mostly a decission of personal / team preference

Now some more details: we have set up both strategies, some with central SWCVs others without central SWCVs. Both will work... Regarding your statement with dependencies, if you plan to use ccBPMs you will need to use dependencies, as ccBPMs can only use interfaces in the same component or in components to which a based on relationship exists. In other words: interfaces must at least appear within the basis objects. Reagrding transports relationships are not enforced and depending components are not shipped within one transport or anything. However you as a developer / administrator have to make sure, that all components needed for an interface are presentwith the correct version etc.

best regards

Christine

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Christine,

Thanks a lot. This is just the kind of good answer I was hoping for! And short too

Merry Christmas

Jorgen

Answers (0)