Redwood Extensions vs Traditional Personalization in Fusion — What to Use When

Oracle Fusion Applications offer incredible flexibility when it comes to tailoring user experiences. Over the years, Page Composer and personalization tools have served well for small UI tweaks. But with the arrival of Redwood UX and Visual Builder (VBCS), we now have a modern way to extend Fusion in a cleaner, scalable, and future-proof manner.

So, which one should you use — and when?

Understanding the Two Approaches

Traditional Personalization

These include:

• Page Composer changes

• Application Composer configurations (CRM, HCM)

• Groovy scripting in some modules (e.g., HCM)

• Flexfields and lookups

They’re quick to apply, don’t require external deployment, and live inside Fusion’s configuration framework.

Best for:

• Minor UI tweaks (hide/show fields)

• Adding labels, messages, or simple logic

• Adjusting page layouts

• Creating small role-based views

• Adding fields via flexfields

Limitations:

• Cannot create brand-new pages or workflows

• Limited UI control

• Dependent on sandbox lifecycle

• Not Redwood by default

• Hard to scale across modules

Redwood Extensions

These are external apps built using Oracle Visual Builder (VBCS), designed using the Redwood design system, and integrated back into Fusion using secure endpoints.

Best for:

• New pages, dashboards, or task flows

• Custom functionality beyond Fusion’s out-of-the-box capabilities

• Building workflows involving multiple data sources

• Delivering Redwood-aligned, consistent user interfaces

• Modernizing legacy customizations

Capabilities:

• Full control over UI/UX with Redwood

• REST API integration with Fusion and beyond

• Deployed independently, but embedded seamlessly

• Scalable and mobile-friendly

• Can be iterated without risking Fusion configurations

Use Case Comparison

Scenario	Traditional Ext	Redwood Ext
Hide a field on the Purchase Order screen	Yes	Overkill
Validation to prevent submission without attachments	Yes	Not needed
Build a supplier onboarding tracker with approvals	Not possible	Ideal
Add a dashboard to show open AP Trx by region	Limited	Strong case
Create a new form to request capital expenditure	Not supported	Recommended
Quick fix needed in 1-2 days	Best choice	Longer setup
Long-term roadmap enhancement	Fragile	Sustainable

Key Factors to Decide

1. Complexity of Requirement

   • Simple field-level logic → Personalization

   • Workflow, new screen, API calls → Redwood

2. User Experience Goals

   • Standard Fusion UI → Personalization

   • Modern, mobile-ready Redwood UI → Redwood extension

3. Scalability & Maintainability

   • One-off quick fix → Personalization

   • Enterprise-grade, reusable solution → Redwood

4. Security & Access Control

   • Fusion Roles + Page Composer → Personalization

   • Fusion + OAuth + App Role Mapping → Redwood

5. Speed to Deliver

   • Sandbox + Page Composer → Fast

   • Redwood app development → More time, better ROI

A Balanced Strategy

You don’t have to choose only one. Many real-world projects use both:

• Start with personalization to deliver fast wins

• Gradually migrate to Redwood for strategic flows

• Use Redwood for anything external, new, or requiring custom business logic

Summary

Think of traditional personalization as a powerful patch kit — quick, handy, and effective for light tailoring.

Redwood, on the other hand, is your custom workshop — it takes a bit more time but gives you full creative control with long-term benefits.

Choose the right tool for the right job✔.