Compelling reasons to install XI when webMethods is available

[Former Member]

Hi All,

Has anyone installed XI in an environment where webMethods is already in use as an EAI tool? What reasons did you have to justify the incremental cost of installing and managing XI? We plan to use XI to process messages between R/3 4.6C and external storefront and EDI applications. We already have interfaces to other systems using the corporate EAI shared service which runs webMethods. I'm trying to build a case that bringing in XI now will save us money and am looking for suggestions.

TIA,

Stan

[MichalKrawczyk]

Hi,

>>>What reasons did you have to justify the incremental cost of installing and managing XI?

here are a few:

1. XI allows ABAP proxy connections - new connection type

2. XI has and will have more predefined scenarios that you can use with different SAP solutions

3. XI can be installed on ERP 2004 so.. this might mean that one day in the future it will be a standard

for every SAP solution

don't konw that for sure but it may happen

4. you SAP admins will be able to administer it - install, upgreade (cause it's just another SAP WAS)

5. you can use your ABAP people to do the mappings (ABAP mappings) apart from Graphical mapping tool of course

which is a much more preferred way when dealing with simple mappings

Regards,

michal

[former_member184154]

I could get a little unpopular for what I'm about to say, but that's my real experience.

First, I am on a project where they were using WM (to link mainframe core erp and warehouse mngmt) and are moving to XI, and that's just be coherent with the global direction which is using XI to integrate the new sap R/3 instance with the rest of the world.

Second, unfortunately EDI is not supported by basic XI: you'll have to buy a SeeBurger Adapter, and that's not for free (latest buzz were about 150k euros, but you can ask them).

Third, I've been involved in several presale activities for my previous comapny, and - believe me - most of the times you have to technically motivate marketing reasons to justify XI adoption, just as Michal tried to do. Even if comparing WM Int.Srv. to XI is like comparing David to Goliat (I worked on both), I think that clever guys can achieve the same reliable integration with both (XI and WM). Of course with WM you'll have to literally write a lot of stuff more, which comes built in with XI.

Regarding Michal's points, a couple of comments:

1. I'm a real ABAP Proxy fan (I brought them in every project I went) but that's not that great added value compared to RFC, and they're for sure slower than RFC.

2 n 3. ... still a fairy tale, but it'll happen sooner or later

4. usual SAP admins have now to learn how to tackle the new J2EE stack, which is completely different in terms of maintenance compared to the good old ABAP stack

5. mmh, honestly I don't think so. Let's tell us the truth: most classic Abapers would not be able to do ABAP mapping using DOM ABAP classes, some of them don't even know how to use ABAP Objects... (Maybe I have recently ran into "bad" guys only So, in this case also, you'll have to consider additional effort make your ABAPers learn this mappinmg technique. For a bunch of reasons, WM flow language is still far better than all the mapping ways offered in XI.

But, once again, and finally, try to convince them using XI: it's a real great jump ahead, from any perspective.

Cheers,

Alex

[MichalKrawczyk]

hi Alessandro

>>>>1. I'm a real ABAP Proxy fan (I brought them in every project I went) but that's not that great added value compared to RFC, and they're for sure slower than RFC.

if you know RFC sender adpater you probably know how many issues where with it (loosing connections and XI restart needed in the past - terrible) - proxies are more stable I believe.

Obviously it's much faster to develop (or migrate RFC) but still...

>>>>2 n 3. ... still a fairy tale, but it'll happen sooner or later

not a fairy tale...

with ERP 2004 and XI sp12 you can put everything together but this is not all - I believe all SAPs component with WAS will have XI - BW, AII (I hope!)

>>>4. usual SAP admins have now to learn how to tackle the new J2EE stack

but is XI the only WAS that requires java stack?

so it a compoany has a portal or any other java instance then it's the same isn't it?

>>>>Let's tell us the truth: most classic Abapers would not be able to do ABAP mapping using DOM ABAP classes, some of them don't even know how to use ABAP Objects

I've been to XI projects where ABAPers learned DOM ABAP in one week and there where able to do all the mappings themselfs - DOM ABAP is not that difficult for anyone and for someone who spent a few years in ABAP it's just a week or two

but I agree we should use graphical mapping or XSLT if possible

I'm glad we agree on one thing:

if you want the XI you have to do some marketing in most cases people who choose the integration platform will never work with it - they will just be responsible for the project:)

Regards,

michal

[former_member184154]

Hi Michal,

I should not answer back (and won't anymore) on this topic, which is really one on which tons of time and words could be spent (more or less uselessly) but you know...:-)

Anyway, just a few comments.

<b>About RFC</b>, I don't care much about the past; RFC Adapter seems to be quite stable now. As I said, ABAP proxy technology is great, no doubts. Still I think (but this is just a matter of time) that when you're going live and need system fine tuning, sysadmins will be more clever on RFC than on HTTP connections... I saw that with my eyes.

<b>About ERP 2004</b>, yeah, you can do it. But, really, will it fit in a <i>productive scenario</i>...?

<b>About J2EE stack</b>, you're 100% right. Java's not required by XI only. I was just talking about Italian scenario, quite sad actually, where sysadmins are still desperately trying to learn what Java & J2EE mean

<b>About ABAPers and DOM</b>, I'm happy for you: it probably means that you met more smart guys than I did. I'm not so optimist as you are on this <i>fast learning</i>.

Btw, it was nice to debate with you on such a <i>delicate</i> topic.

Take care,

Alexx

Message was edited by: Alessandro Guarneri