How to Implement Dynamic XSLT or Groovy Transformations in SAP CPI Based on Message Context?

[Praneeth_Reddy_Yeruva]

Hi SAP Community,

I'm working on a complex integration scenario using SAP Cloud Integration (CPI), where incoming messages can vary in structure and must be transformed differently depending on:

• The message content (specific fields or data structure)

• Custom headers or properties passed from upstream systems

I want to apply different XSLT or Groovy scripts at runtime, without creating multiple iFlows or hardcoding every possible condition into a single transformation.

My Questions:

1. How can I dynamically apply different XSLT or Groovy scripts based on runtime conditions (e.g., a header field like Document Type)?

2. Is there a way to modularize and externalize scripts or transformations so they can be reused or loaded conditionally in the iFlow?

3. What are the performance considerations or limitations when using conditional script execution or dynamic resource loading in CPI?

4. Can this be combined with Content Modifier or Router patterns to maintain readability and reusability of the iFlow?

5. Are there any recommended design patterns for managing complex transformation logic dynamically in CPI projects?

What I’ve Tried:

• I’ve used Groovy scripts with if-else blocks to call different logic branches, but this becomes hard to manage at scale.

• I’ve explored externalizing scripts using Script Collection, but couldn’t find a way to dynamically load them at runtime based on message properties.

• I read that dynamic script execution might be possible with evaluate() in Groovy, but I’m unsure of its security and performance impact in CPI.

Goal:

Design a scalable and maintainable approach to apply runtime-dependent transformations (XSLT or Groovy) within a single iFlow based on message metadata or structure.

Any best practices, examples, or gotchas would be highly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
YERUVA PRANEETH REDDY

[RameshVaranganti]

you mentioned where incoming messages can vary in structure and must be transformed differently depending on:

lets brekdon for scalable solution.

what is the sender and what is message type?

How the message strcture can be vary?

is source is havinf any idendifier?

when different strcures from the source, why you want single iflow?

what will be error handling strategies required?

is re-processing required in the case of error? if yes, is source able to send? or middleware need to handle?

Before jumping to solution would like to know more info on this required solution

[Ryan-Crosby]

Why would you treat incoming messages of varying structures that require different transformations as a single integration scenario?

[Praneeth_Reddy_Yeruva]

1. Understanding the Problem
You are receiving messages that are not always the same format. Depending on the message content or headers, each message needs to be transformed in a specific way. You want this to happen inside one integration flow without creating separate flows for every message type.

---

2. Deciding Transformations at Runtime
This is possible by using message headers or properties to carry values like "DocumentType". You can then use logic in the integration flow to check this value and decide which transformation to apply. The decision is made during runtime, based on actual message data.

---

3. Organizing Logic into Reusable Scripts
Instead of writing one large script for all types of messages, break the logic into smaller, reusable scripts. Each script handles one type of transformation and can be stored in a script collection. This makes your integration easier to read, test, and maintain.

---

4. CPI Limitations on Dynamic Loading
SAP CPI does not allow you to load scripts dynamically from external locations during runtime. It also blocks features like running raw code strings for security reasons. All transformation logic must be uploaded and packaged when you design and deploy the integration.

---

5. Using Message Properties for Routing
You can use a content modifier step to extract values from the message and store them in headers or properties. Later in the flow, you can use a router or a logic step to check this value and control which transformation is applied. This gives you flexibility and dynamic behavior based on message content.

---

6. Clean Design with Routers and Sub-Flows
For better readability, you can split the flow into multiple branches using routers. Each branch can handle a specific message type and run its own script or sub-flow. This avoids cluttering the main flow and keeps each transformation isolated.

---

7. Recommended Integration Patterns
Two useful patterns for this kind of use case are the dispatcher pattern and the router-plus-sub-flow pattern. The dispatcher pattern uses one logic step to choose the transformation, while the router pattern sends messages down different branches based on type. Choose the one that fits your team’s style and the complexity of your project.

---

8. What to Avoid for Maintainability
Avoid placing all transformation logic into one large script. Avoid using unsupported methods like dynamic script loading or code evaluation. Avoid mixing too many tools in a single flow unless necessary. Keeping logic modular and clean will save time in the long run.

---

9. Final Thoughts and Next Steps
Your goal of building a scalable and dynamic integration is achievable with good design. Use headers to carry decision-making data, organize scripts into manageable units, and route messages intelligently. If needed, you can sketch this out using a flow diagram or even create a base template for future integrations.