Pure API or XML synchronization?Pure API or XML synchronization?

As the work on the Pure API progresses, a lot of our customers are wondering if they should start planning for rewriting their synchronizations to leverage this.

As the Pure API is still missing a number of features that are built in to the synchronization functionality, our recommendation is to use the XML synchronization for most use-cases.

Currently, the XML synchronization framework offers the following features:

• It is batch oriented, making it ideal for processes that run on a schedule that is managed inside Pure.
  • Easy to coordinate with other jobs, i.e. users and organizations, should be run before persons.
• Identity management happens in Pure, the customer doesn't have to concern themselves with Pure identifiers.
• Supports content and field locking strategies.
• Monitoring of result can be found inside Pure in the job logs.
• The synchronizations sanitize data to get in through Pure validation rules. This could be removing unwanted XHTML elements, adding organizations to other places in the model, where it is needed to generate valid content.

The Pure API supports the following features:

• It is event oriented, making it ideal for reacting to changes in the source systems (if they're expressed as events or messages).
• Only understands Pure UUIDs for content identity, any matching between source identifiers and the Pure UUID has to happen in the service client.
• Does not directly support content and field locking (it can be faked, though - see Synchronization workaround).