Alternative for integration process ?

Question

The XI integration process functionality for me looks like another example of overkill design in XI. Needs lots of additional abstract message interface declarations, difficult to follow what really happens.
Question: what alternatives in XI are possible without breaking the architecure completely ? E.g. when I have to perform some simple connected steps, like call an RFC, then load a file via FTP, then send out an email with the result data. Where in XI could I define a Java or ABAP method which does that programmatically ? The communication channels have some module processors. Would that be the right place ( define a module processor in channel which receives the trigger). Are there standard functions in XI available in Java or ABAP to perform RFC, FTP...
or is it better to do it in a Java or ABAP mapping ? This does not seem to make much sense.
Any experiences or ideas ?
CSY

Answer 1

hi,
the complete lauch of xi is to have common place for all designed interfaces and configuration and monitoring stuffs.
client b4r getting in to xi should read his landscape and justify whether to  bring in xi r not, when this step is not done,  questions as mentioned above would arise around
what is the need of  xi for simple function which i can do by abap , java , jco s etc..(many ask ))
but  beauty of xi is tapped when the  landscape around it is growing and when u want to  intergrate those all systems.
i guess it's better to have xi standard congf instead peeping in to other hindden programs to do same , as it would be easily visible to all developer who come in .
IP is the class idea and u shud think if u r flow has more logic in between to be manipulated.
In in the end the moral is that every system is capable of meeting the requirment we shud be in search of which can be trusted and maitained easily as a long run  ) everything is possible.
rgds
srini
Edited by: Venkateswarlu Srinivas on Jul 9, 2008 3:19 PM