Press "Enter" to skip to content

SAP Middleware comparison: CPI vs. PO

0

 

There are some blog posts existing about comparing SAP´s Middleware Solutions from an architectural perspective:

  • On-Premise: SAP Process Orchestration (PO), with SAP PI, SAP BPM, SAP BRM
  • Cloud: SAP Cloud Platform Integration (CPI), fka. HCI

Now, from a functional/development <interface design> point of view here are the highlights:

  1. Flexible Pipeline
    • PO: Very standardized approach of an iFlow/ICO: Connectivity->Routing->Mapping->Connectivity.
    • CPI: Completely flexible approach. Provides transparency about all processing steps (conversions, routing, transformation, security elements).
  2. Stateful Message Processing
    • PO: Mainly part of BPM.
    • CPI: Integrated in iFlow already.
  3. Human Tasks
    • PO: Part of BPM.
    • CPI: Not integrated, this is addresses with SAP Cloud Platform Workflow.
  4. Separation of Design Time & Configuration
    • PO: ESR for design time artifacts, DIR for configuration.
    • CPI: Mainly managed in the iFlow. Configurable Elements can be externalized, Users are managed also outside of iFlows.
  5. Interface Modeling
    • PO: Interfaces can be modeled with data type editors and using GDTs => Outside-In approach (Inside-Out also possible).
    • CPI: No modeling environment available. (Existing) interface definitions (WSDL, XSD) have to be imported => Inside-Out approach only.
  6. Content Organisation & Reuse
    • PO: Strong governance enables reuse of integration content globally.
    • CPI: Each iFlow is autonomous, lean and independent. Reuse exists for user credentials though.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.