Skip to Content

Is BRFPlus a good tool for very complex mappings?

I need to map the content of CRM Orders to a deep structure containing hundreds of fields.

Currently I use single rules in BRFPlus to map one field to another.

Do you have any experience if it would be a good idea to map all data from a CRM Order (20+ tables) to one target structure in one big ruleset in BRFPlus?

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

2 Answers

  • Best Answer
    Jan 25 at 02:14 PM

    Hi Mark,

    I think BRFplus is a great tool for Business Rules but not for this purpose. Use it for Business Rules but not as Mapping Tool. SAP has mapping tools like the Service Mapping Tool (SMT) but you can also code in using ABAP. Since NW 7.40 ABAP gets more and more feratures for doing mappings and you can also use Unit Tests. This is what I would do. Are are there any reasons why you are thinking of BRFplus?

    Cheers,

    Tobias

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Thanks Tobias.

      The idea behind using BRF+ here was that the basic ABAP could be built quickly and all the mapping could be iteratively defined together with business in rules. Then we could easily simulate and change mapping without the need to touch the code every once in a while. But when the development is ready all rules are fixed and no changes are needed anymore.

      Most of the fields are mapped statically while only some have complex calculations needing many parameters for it.

      So maybe in this case BRF+ will not provide too much additional value here and I just stick using ABAP.

  • Jan 25 at 03:48 PM

    I partly agree with Tobias, but I also think it can be a great tool.

    It really depends on the type of complexity - is it mostly technical or business? If technical then forget BRF+. However BRF+ can complement a mapping tool with the business part of mapping. And also consider frequency of change.

    I built a mapping rule engine that sat on top of a technical mapping, and allowed any field mapping to be redefined in BRFplus. Basically if a rule existed for a target field it would be used to populate it. Things like account numbers, posting keys. We could do stuff like split an input posting entry across multiple accounts based on content and all sorts. All was totally dynamic, users could add columns to the input data and incorporate it into their rules without any development.

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Hi Mike,

      thanks for adding your considerations. I also think that it is an advantage to split between ABAP code and rules that can be defined seperately together with business. But for this special case (see my answer to Tobias) it may a bit too much overhead here.