- SAP Community
- Groups
- Interest Groups
- Application Development
- Discussions
- Mapping tables during interfacing...
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
Mapping tables during interfacing...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-26-2005 7:37 PM
Hi,
Our team has to select option from mapping tables location while working on interfacig object development.
We are using Biztalk as middleware.
Depending on your past xperiences I would like to have your suggestions if the mapping table should reside in biztalk or in R/3.
There are pros and cons to both of this..
If we have some mapping tables in r/3 and some in biztalk again there will be maintainence problem. But if I we keep all the mapping tables in Biztalk it will be a big overhead because then even for r/3 to r/3 interfacing we would have to go through biztalk. But then during upgradation it won't be a problem because now the mapping tabs are all in biztalk..
Tushar.
- SAP Managed Tags:
- ABAP Development
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-27-2005 7:34 PM
Hi Tushar,
I see following benifits in storing mapping tables on R3 -
1. R3 being the bigger system, you will have more information available for mapping in R3. E.g. if a mapping depends on some attribute of data like "material type" you have that information avialable in R3 whereas you need to have a process to pull this information into Biztalk from R3 and keep it in sync.
2. You can reuse the mapping logic for other interfaces if coded correctly, e.g. function modules for mapping.
3. Tomorrow if biztalk is replaced with XI, there is less impact because you need not worry about mapping logic which is alreay there in R3.
Lastly I don't see any real reason why it should have an y impact on upgrade because you are going to use tables in customer name range. It only increases the number of tables in customer name range. Usually people calculate the cost of an upgrade based on level of customization done in the system and that is genrally linked to number of objects in customer name range. But If think pragmatically there is no impact on upgrade cost because these kind of customization do not affect upgrade.
Cheers,
Sanjeev
- SAP Managed Tags:
- ABAP Development
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-27-2005 7:34 PM
Hi Tushar,
I see following benifits in storing mapping tables on R3 -
1. R3 being the bigger system, you will have more information available for mapping in R3. E.g. if a mapping depends on some attribute of data like "material type" you have that information avialable in R3 whereas you need to have a process to pull this information into Biztalk from R3 and keep it in sync.
2. You can reuse the mapping logic for other interfaces if coded correctly, e.g. function modules for mapping.
3. Tomorrow if biztalk is replaced with XI, there is less impact because you need not worry about mapping logic which is alreay there in R3.
Lastly I don't see any real reason why it should have an y impact on upgrade because you are going to use tables in customer name range. It only increases the number of tables in customer name range. Usually people calculate the cost of an upgrade based on level of customization done in the system and that is genrally linked to number of objects in customer name range. But If think pragmatically there is no impact on upgrade cost because these kind of customization do not affect upgrade.
Cheers,
Sanjeev
- SAP Managed Tags:
- ABAP Development
