Navigating SAP’s Integration Options (Mastering SAP Technologies 2013)

  • 1,121 views
Uploaded on

Provides an overview of popular integration approaches, maps them to SAP's integration tools and concludes with some lessons learnt in their application.

Provides an overview of popular integration approaches, maps them to SAP's integration tools and concludes with some lessons learnt in their application.

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,121
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4

Actions

Shares
Downloads
76
Comments
0
Likes
3

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Naviga&ng  SAP’s  Integra&on  Op&ons   Lessons  Learnt  Integra&ng  SAP  into  a  Complex  Landscape Sascha  Wenninger @sufw    
  • 2. About Me Technical Architect Focus: SAP Integration Opinionated Co-founder of Blue T SAP Mentor Wannabe Performance Engineer Enterprise IT !== Boring 3
  • 3. 4https://secure.flickr.com/photos/good_day/159927879/
  • 4. There were files. 5
  • 5. Then came RFC 6
  • 6. 7
  • 7. So What DoYou Choose? 8
  • 8. https://secure.flickr.com/photos/manannan_alias_fanch/315630347/ 9
  • 9. 10h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/freddiebrown/6296214984/
  • 10. 11h1ps://secure.flickr.com/photos/92583675@N00/2322009245/
  • 11. 12h1ps://secure.flickr.com/photos/pascalbovet/4375204691/
  • 12. ?
  • 13. TINLOTR
  • 14. One Integration Approach to Rule them All
  • 15. One Integration Approach to Rule them All
  • 16. One ____________ to Rule them All
  • 17. One ____________ to Rule them All
  • 18. Use the Right Tool for the Job! “Right  Tool  for  the  Job?”,  by  Bruce  Murray
  • 19. 21h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/rideyourbike/2275993007/
  • 20. 22 Back to First Principles
  • 21. Push or Pull? That is the Question. 23
  • 22. 24 Data  Flow A B Source DesVnaVon
  • 23. 25 A B Actual  IntegraVon? A  sends  to  B A BB  fetches  from  A or
  • 24. 26 A knows B Low latency easy A is active party A has control A may not know B Low latency possible B is active party B has control A B A B
  • 25. 27 or h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/gcwest/2686928531/
  • 26. Synchronous: Source is responsible to make itself understood 28h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/48975388@N07/7163918352/
  • 27. Asynchronous: Target is responsible to ensure it understands 29h1p://www.dumpaday.com/wp-­‐content/uploads/2013/02/funny-­‐pictures-­‐dumpaday-­‐28.jpg
  • 28. They’re the only binary choices you have to make! 30
  • 29. <sidebar> 31
  • 30. Synchronous == Best Effort,“Kiddie Stuff” Asynchronous == Reliable, Guaranteed Delivery,“Enterprisey” 32
  • 31. Synchronous == Best Effort,“Kiddie Stuff” Asynchronous == Reliable, Guaranteed Delivery,“Enterprisey” 33
  • 32. Remember the OSI Model? 34 7 Application 6 Presentation 5 Session 4 Transport 3 Network 2 Data Link 1 Physical More or less leaky abstractions Inherently Synchronous
  • 33. Everything in Computing is Ultimately Synchronous! 35“Turtle  Tower”,  by  Andreas  Al
  • 34. 36 (It’s all about error handling!)
  • 35. </sidebar> 37
  • 36. For Example: Getting data into an Enterprise Data Warehouse (using SAP BW as an example) 38
  • 37. SAP  BW 39 Inbound Data Layer Transformation Layer Reporting Data Layer Reporting Tool Visualisation Tool Source System, e.g. SAP ERP Extractor Process Chain Process Chain Queries Browser access
  • 38. SAP  BW 40 Source System A Transformation Layer Reporting Data Layer Reporting Tool Visualisation Tool Source System B Source System C Source System D Source System E Inbound Data Layer
  • 39. 41 A B C D BW E “Blue  Marble  Next  GeneraVon,  Raw  Bathymetry”,  by  NASA  Visible  Earth
  • 40. 42
  • 41. 43 A B C D BW “Blue  Marble  Next  GeneraVon,  Raw  Bathymetry”,  by  NASA  Visible  Earth E
  • 42. 44 Best Bets for Push vs. Pull Decisions n Sources, 1 Target 1 Source, n Targets “dumb” Source No/few intermediaries Many intermediaries Low latency needed ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
  • 43. 45 Shared Database ETL (Extract,Transform, Load) File Transfer Message-Based SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) REST h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/marktee/7545627352
  • 44. 46 Shared Database
  • 45. 47 Shared Database
  • 46. ETL: Extract,Transform, Load 48
  • 47. File Transfer 49
  • 48. Message-Based 50
  • 49. SOA: Service Oriented Architecture 51
  • 50. REST: Representational State Transfer, aka “Web APIs” 52
  • 51. When to Use Which Approach? 53Image  credit:  Jenny  Shirey
  • 52. 54 Criteria: DataVolume 1 kB 10 kB 100 kB 1 MB 10 MB 100 MB 1 GB ETL File Transfer Message-Based SOA REST
  • 53. 55 Criteria: Frequency 1/week 1/day 1/hour 1/min 1/sec 10/sec ETL File Transfer Message-Based SOA REST
  • 54. 56 Criteria:Application Capabilities None Rudimentary Intermediate Sophisticated ETL File Transfer Message-Based SOA REST
  • 55. Criteria: Synchronicity 57 Fire  &  Forget! Asynchronous@ Synchronous$ ETL ✔ ✔ File Transfer ✔ Message-Based ✔ SOA ✔ ✔ REST ✔ ✔ !      No  technical  acknowledgment  received  by  Sender @  Technical  (delivery)  acknowledgment  received  by  Sender $    Request/Response  communicaVon
  • 56. Criteria: Data or Functionality? 58 Data-­‐Centric Func&onality-­‐Centric ETL ✔ File Transfer ✔ Message-Based ✔ SOA ✔ REST ✔
  • 57. 59 Our Tools h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelarmr/2435107204/
  • 58. 60
  • 59. 61
  • 60. Best for Caution with • SAP’s Middleware product. –Origins in EAI, Message-based integration –XML-centric, many protocol adapters –Design-time SOA features, file transfer capabilities 62 PI: Process Integration •Push-oriented integration •XML data formats •Stateless processing •e.g. Message Router, Channel or Translator patterns •High-volume synchronous scenarios •Large (~200MB+) messages •Scenarios requiring keeping state •e.g. collect, distributed transactions, etc. •B2B integration
  • 61. Best for Caution with • SAP’s “middleware stack”: PI 7.3 + BPM + BRM –Java-only installation with much improved (10x!) runtime performance –Next-gen NetWeaver BPM runtime for stateful processing 63 PO: Process Orchestration •Push-oriented integration •XML data formats •Stateless processing •e.g. Message Router, Channel or Translator patterns •High-volume synchronous scenarios •Large (~200MB+) messages •Short timeframe projects (skills availability) •B2B integration (although investment is increasing)
  • 62. Best for Caution with • SAP’s ETL Tooling: Extract > Transform > Cleanse > Load –Bulk data transfers at the database level –Useful for replicating content of data warehouses 64 BODS: BusinessObjects Data Services •Data-centric integration •Pull-oriented integration •Large volume of data •Low frequency, high latency •Data quality enforcement •Bulk loads into HANA •Application-to-Application integration •Lower latency requirements •Infrequently-changing data •Granular information
  • 63. ALE - specifically IDocs 65 • SAP-proprietary message-based integration • Well integrated into SAP applications, some heavily rely on it. –Slowly being supplanted by web services, but not yet. • Mature and feature-rich Best for Caution with •Integrating standard functionality of different SAP applications with each other •Forward Error Handling •Processing messages in bulk, or in sequence •Integrating applications not built by SAP. •Can enhance “Fortress SAP” perceptions •Enhancing/extending standard IDocs
  • 64. 66
  • 65. ABAP Batch Jobs • "The 80's called, they want their integration back" • Nevertheless still useful in some cases –But use XML.Tab-delimited files should have gone extinct in the 80s. 67 Best for Caution with •Fire & Forget asynchronous transfer •Long-running "message" creation •Often lowest-common denominator •Outbound from SAP ;-) •SAP on the inbound side; error handling is generally bespoke. •High-volume or high-frequency interactions
  • 66. Best for Caution with • SAP’s Web Service Layer –translates XML to ABAP, and back 68 ABAP Proxies •Proper outside-in web service design •Logging •Idempotency •Forward Error Handling •WS-* support •Relying only on ESR modeling •Some industry-standard XML Schemas NW ABAP (e.g. ECC, CRM) BAPI ABAP Classes ABAP Proxy Layer SOAP Client
  • 67. Best for Caution with • SAP’s REST-inspired OData API Layer for: –Business Suite –HANA –NW BPM, Business Workflow –etc. 69 NetWeaver Gateway •Functionality-centric integration •Pull-oriented integration •Client/server architectures •Multi-request interactions •Exposing public APIs directly. •Formats other than OData or JSON NW ABAP (e.g. ECC, CRM) BAPI ABAP Classes Workflow ECC/CRM etc. NW BPM NW Gateway JSON/ OData Client
  • 68. Best for Caution with • SAP’s generic HTTP Server Layer –direct access to HTTP requests –hand-craft responses to include any content. 70 ABAP HTTP Handlers •Complex, functionally-rich REST APIs •Intimate control over content: •from Plain-text to Binary •Interesting 'hacks' •Large numbers of 'cookie-cutter' interfaces •requires hand-crafting •Learning curve NW ABAP (e.g. ECC, CRM) BAPI ABAP Classes ABAP HTTP Handler HTTP Client
  • 69. 71 Assessing Fit h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/90369723@N00/5580038871/
  • 70. 72 PI PO BO  DS ALE/IDocs ETL ✔ File Transfer ✔ ✔ ✔ Message-Based ✔ ✔ ✔ SOA ✔ ✔ REST
  • 71. 73 Batch  Jobs ABAP  Proxies Gateway HTTP  Handler ETL ✔ File Transfer ✔ Message-Based ✔ SOA ✔ ✔ ✔ REST ✔ ✔
  • 72. 74
  • 73. Use the right tool for the job. 75h1p://cheezburger.com/3535420672
  • 74. Think XML Schema 76
  • 75. Modeling XML using ESR Data Type objects is too restrictive: Time-consuming Cannot extend elements No abstract types No xs:choice, xs:all, xs:any, etc. Poor support for industry-standard XML Schemas Lots of work-arounds... 77
  • 76. 78 0%! 20%! 40%! 60%! 80%! 100%! ABAP Proxy! ESR! Supported! Partially Supported! Not Supported!
  • 77. Plan for reuse at the right level! 79
  • 78. 80 ✔ ✔ ?
  • 79. Don’t aim for reuse. Let it emerge. 81h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/yukonblizzard/2926897104/
  • 80. Reusable or 82 Future Legacy? Cumbersome? One Size Fits None? Regression Testing Nightmare?
  • 81. YAGNI + Refactor 83h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/mcgraths/3248483447/
  • 82. You Ain't Gonna Need It + Refactor 84h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/mcgraths/3248483447/
  • 83. Don’t try to predict the future. You will be wrong. If in doubt, leave it out. “As simple as possible” Plan to refactor to improve! 85
  • 84. Build tests. 86h1p://www.flickr.com/photos/kwl/4809326028/
  • 85. 87h1p://agilemanifesto.org
  • 86. 88
  • 87. 89 Business value over technical strategy Evolutionary refinement over pursuit of initial perfection
  • 88. Main Message 90http://tomfishburne.com/2012/07/one-size-fits-none.html
  • 89. Key Points to Take Home You will need more than one tool. Get the interaction right. Aim for simplicity.This helps implementation and support. 91
  • 90. Sascha Wenninger @sufw sascha@BlueT.com.au +61 403 933 472
  • 91. Further Reading Enterprise Integration Patterns (Hohpe & Woolf). The Book and the Site. Positioning Process Integration and Data Services, by SAP The Practical Science of Batch Size, by Don Reinertsen. Video and slides. Comments on the SOA Manifesto, by co-author Stefan Tilkov 94