I have to disagree with Mr./Ms. Whoopass on this one, at least from the customer side. Suppliers, yep, force them in line, one map for many. Now, perhaps this is industry or vertical dependent, but there's no way in h e double hockey sticks I am going to try to merge automotive OEMs into a single map. They are highly individualistic and extremely customized. It's a huge PITA even to make a change to one of the existing maps when it's for a single customer and they make a "small" change. Doing regression testing for all customers would take days or weeks if they were all in one map.
One map, one customer. What if you forget a certain test case? What if you forget an odd foible of one customer? Do you really want to have more documentation than code in your map? Do you really want to have to reference every IG you have prior to making a change to see if any other customer will be affected? Do you really want to try to debug a map that used to work for all your customers, but after one small change now works for 67 out of 72 of them? Really? Make one small change to one small map, limit your time and exposure to risk. This has worked for me and the dozens of employers/clients I've worked with for nearly 20 years. Oh, and be sure to get some ketchup for those fries. Leah ________________________________ From: PCD <[email protected]> To: EDI--L <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [EDI-L] [TECH] 1 map vs many partner based maps (Best EDI Practice?) Ilia, This philosophy works for me and has for 16+ years. I have one map for a document per X12 version. On our vendor side, we try to corral them into using 003050 or 004010. Our customers are anything from 002001 to 004060. But it does work and I don't spend much time maintaining maps. I map out complete segments, but I don't use all the segments available for the document, just the ones that need to be used. From: shluftHi. In preparation to our SAP migration I've offered my boss to migrate our numerous customized and mostly simple per-partner maps into centralized map driven by partner-based parameters configured within the EDI system (Sterling Integrator). My boss was challenging me whether this was within "Best practices of EDI". I understand this is rather conceptual issue, and question is whether it would be hard to maintain centralized map (whenever there is a need to change something for 1 partner, you'd have to retest the data for all of them, I get that :))) Never the less, if EDI is not ran by consulting shop, and the long term goal is reducing maintenance and cost - would this approach fall within "Best practices of EDI" and would there be any documentation out there to support it, other then exchange of opinions of EDI gurus on this mailing list? Yeah, and I wana fries with that! Happy Friday! :)))) Thanks! Ilia. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ ... Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix.Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
