Skip to Content

difference between CS and ICO.

Aug 23, 2017 at 04:50 PM


avatar image

Hi All,

This might be a simple question, but unfortunately i did not find the answer in sdn.

What is the difference in creating the interface in CS or in ICO. Is there any technical difference between both, means any message flow is different for both of them?



10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded
* Please Login or Register to Answer, Follow or Comment.

3 Answers

Best Answer
Raghuraman S Aug 24, 2017 at 06:10 AM

CS- configuration scenario which is bundling of all run time objects systems, channels, Agreements, Receiver/Interface determinations,and even ICOs.This doesn't have any technical significance just groping of process.

ICO-Integrated configuration object which technically defines end-end flow like source system, channel, target system, channel. This is required for end-end message flow and defines the message flow.

10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded
Che Eky Aug 24, 2017 at 12:47 PM

The ICO is not meant to use the ABAP stack so should be faster. You cannot use ICO if you have ABAP objects in your configuration, e.g. ABAP mapping. If I have a choice I always use ICO.

Quote "The PI pipeline steps are kept very simple and processed in just one engine (Advanced Adapter Engine). The performance is greatly improved with the ICO based interface configurations."


10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded
Patrick Weber Aug 24, 2017 at 07:33 AM

To complement Raghuraman's answer: If you want to run your scenario on a single-stack installation, you will need to use ICOs as the ABAP objects you would typically group in a CS are not available there. Even if you are running a dual-stack installation today, it is probably a good idea to start building new integration scenarios as ICOs so you avoid conversion effort at a later point when you'll eventually move to single-stack.

10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded