BizTalk: XSLT versus mapping tool

Question

We\'re doing a mapping process from an XML file generated by a legacy system to EDI 834/837 files. We have BizTalk 2010 and are using the Microsoft built in EDI schemas.

Answer 1

Not really an answer, more sharing of expierence;

In my team we've had discussion on this issue. The argument for maps was that it is understood by most colleagues (as it is touched by every basic BizTalk training), and XSLT not.

I've personally worked with XSLT for a long time, before i started working with BizTalk, and find the mapper tool very .. unintuitive. Every connection i make raises more questions than it gives me comfort in knowing what the result is. What happens when the source node is nil, not present, or repeating? Whathappens when the target node is defined as minOccurs=2? What does the table mapping functoid do exactly? What does the table value extract functoid do when a value is not found? How do i create a node with an autonumbering sequence, and how do i relate other created nodes that can relate to those nodes by using the generated number?

Working with XSLT gives me the control back, i know exactly what happens.

XSLT maps have the added value of being text-based, wich works well with branching and mering in source control, and allows us to add coments in the sources. Ever tried to merge changes from a map from two diffrent branches?

End result is that we now prefer XSLT for mapping, but not every developer is fluent in XSLT. That requires some training.

One last tip: invest in unit test tooling for your maps. Find an open source toolkit, or write some plumbing to test your maps yourself. Most BizTalk artifacts are perfectly testable, even when it doesn't seem that way, with possible exception for orchestrations (which you should use as a last resort only anyway).