What is the best way of architecturing SWCV in PI

[Former Member]

Hi,

I have 4 different ways of architecturing my interfaces in SWCV,

Approach 1: Single Software Component version (SWCV) for all Interfaces

Approach 2: Single SWCV per interface scenario

Approach 3: Separate SWCVs for sender and receiver

Approach 4: Separate SWCVs for sender, receiver and mapping

Can any body tell me from their designing experience which is best recommended and used with examples.

Also provide some advantages of it in terms of version management,maintainance,reusability and transport.

Thnx

Chirag

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

>>Can any body tell me from their designing experience which is best recommended and used with examples.

One of the very good blogs in SDN

/people/thorsten.nordholmsbirk/blog/2006/07/25/structuring-integration-repository-content--part-1-software-component-versions

3607

Regards,

Jaishankar

Edited by: Jai Shankar on Feb 12, 2008 3:01 PM

[Former Member]

Chirag,

if you think about the logics - the design shoud meet the company architecture. It is no problem to design all interfaces in 1 SWCV or do separate SWCV for each scenario if u have 10 interfaces. But think about this, if you'll have 500. So I don't think that approach 1 and 2 are useful.

So go for 3 or 4. I for example always use 3. Yes, the truth is, that mapping is done by XI, but why to create SWCV for only data types and then SWCV for mapping? This was not the way how SAP engineers thought about it I think. And where to put the mapping in approach 3? I place for example mapping always in the target system's SWCV. Approach 4 is also possible and used, but as I said - why to have mappings and other objects separatly? But this dependes only on your decision.

Peter

p.s. If you want to have every interaface separatly, you can create them in different namespaces

Edited by: Peter Jarunek on Feb 12, 2008 10:55 AM

[Former Member]

I think the Approach 4 is good. Separate SWCVs are created for the sender and the receiver systems.The mappings/integration scenarios reside in a 'Common' SWCV. Dependencies can be configured in the SLD.

In terms of transports this is reasonable and easier to maintain. Reusability of objects is best captured in PI 7.1 with Function libraries etc,but as such in 7.0/3.0 there is hardly any reusability there. In terms of maintenance I believe this is the best approach since we had been following this for some projects here.

[prateek]

SWC is a logical way of organizing ur PI developments. There is no specific rule for using these SWC for optimal usage. Each scenario may have separate requirement.

Approach 1: Single Software Component version (SWCV) for all Interfaces

The logically related interfaces (e.g. based on type of message) should be collected in a single SWC. Interfaces that are part of a Business process are ideally gathered together. Now if ur PI has only one such Business Scenario, the one SWC is enuf

Transport is easiest. Only one object to be transported

Approach 2: Single SWCV per interface scenario

Not at all recommended

Approach 3: Separate SWCVs for sender and receiver

Could be used. But again better to go with Business Scenario wise development

Approach 4: Separate SWCVs for sender, receiver and mapping

Usually not prefrred

Regards,

Prateek

[Former Member]

Hi,

Farooq,

I would like to know the impact of ur suggested architecutre in terms of reusability,transport,debugging,maintanacne points of view.Dont u think we need to create an SWCV dependency between all the three SWCV if we go with this approach?

Prateek,

I was thinking of first option, if I have all the interfaces realted to FI then create one SWCV for FI and create all the interfaces related to FI in that SWCV similary for other modules.

Can you please let me know the impact in terms of in terms of reusability,transport,debugging,maintanacne.

Thnx

Chirag

[prateek]

Reusbility: Can be achieved anytime using SWC dependency in SLD

Transport: As I mentioned will be simplest as u may transport the entire SWC in one go.

Debugging: IR part with SWC usually doesnt require much of debugging

Mainenance: As long as no of interfaces are less, the maintenance will nt b a problem at all. As the no of interfaces increases, the logical division would be required bcoz in tht case, the maintenance ll become difficult

Regards,

Prateek

[Former Member]

I think it will be good if you go with the 3-tier approach.

Meaning invlovement of Three SWCV:

First: For sender DT,MT,MI,

Second: Canonical for MM, IM, BPM

Third: For Receiver DT, MT, MI

Thanks

Farooq