Many a times as an Integration Architect / Integration Consultant / Interface Designer we are faced with choices on which technology / tool to use. There are several ways to skin a cat. In tech speak that translates to how do we deliver an interface with the "right" mapping technology? That usually boils down to "Best Practice" (SAP recommended approach) or "Best Fit" (for the client). However, it is more often determined by available skill set and what the said resource is comfortable with.
So what is the "right" answer? Is there such a thing as a "right" answer? What works well for a particular client may not hold true for others. There is no "one size fits all". Hence I will not attempt to answer this question. Instead I will provide my point of view drawn purely from personal experiences.
The below table is a summary of my experiences from several sites and projects over a period of close to 10 years. This is not a guide by any means; but a philosophical approach to the world of integration and associated mapping tools.
| Mapping Technology | Rating (out of 5) | Merits | Limitations | Sites | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graphical | 5 |
|
| Majority | ||
| Graphical w/ Java UDFs | 4
| Use Java where your canvas looks almost unreadable / difficult to maintain |
| Majority | ||
| XSLT | 4 |
|
| A few large sites | ||
| Java (not Java UDFs) | 1 | Anything can be done programmatically if you are a Java guru |
| Few sites with small number of interfaces |