IntegrationHub ETL is a downgraded version of Classis transform maps?

[Suggy]

For me, IntegrationHub ETL is a downgraded version of Classis transform maps.

Reason:

1. Using classic transform maps also I can target several target tables for a single data source.  Whats special with IHETL?

2. Its easier to write scripting like onstart, onbefore, onafter etc.. but its a pain with IHETL.. not straight forward.

3. I can easily call IRE API and with this approach it will be dynamic. ie if you add new CI identifiers, calling IRE API will do the magic, but with IHETL, you need to edit the ETL app and make the adjustments (basically not dynamic in nature)

4. I can easily see how many records got created/updated/ignored etc with Transform maps, but not the case with IHETL.

So IHETL is a pain!!! its a downgraded solution !!! Do you agree or am I missing anything?

[infosurahal]

I see your points about IntegrationHub ETL! The flexibility and ease of use with classic transform maps do seem to offer significant advantages, especially with dynamic changes and scripting. It can be frustrating when newer solutions lack the intuitive features of their predecessors. Have you found any specific scenarios where IHETL works better, or is it mostly a struggle?

[Suggy]

Per me its a downgraded one. Hence posted here to see if anyone tell me otherwise 😉

[Suggy]

Anyone, any feedback?

[Suggy]

Anyone?