Routing Notification v/s ALE Listener Notifications

I am curious to know if there are known pitfalls in terms of performance when one uses Routing Notification v/s ALE Listener notification.

Is it true that Outbound transactions (iDOCS from SAP to webMethods) transact slower if we use Routing notification v/s when we use ALE Listener notification?

Any pointers would be appreciated.


After a long battle, SAG admitted that Routing notifications are slower than ALE notifications…purpotedly because we have service auditing enabled for the notification service. SAG gave a known “FIX” - to my mind it is more like a work around. Suggestions/Comments are welcome… here is the fix:
Add the extended setting: - watt.server.classloader.pkgpriority=WmSAP
when service auditing is enabled, the IS server needs to clone the pipeline data each time it processes a transaction. Because the data is an IDoc, the IS server needs to load classes that can handle IDoc data structures… and these are in the WmSAP package. It’s the searching for these classes that is taking time… so we use this setting to “tell” the IS server to search WmSAP package first. This is how it speeds up the process.

I still have this question:
Why doesnt ALE notification behave the same way? We have the same notification IS Service performing 100 times faster with ALE notification as compared to Routing notification