<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7233.69">
<TITLE>RE: Race to the Finish Line</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText90517 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Not a bad idea but I think
the limitations are a show stopper for me (especially no 2).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I like your concept of the passer passing
itself to the workflow. Its so OO.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=idSignature50752 dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG>Alon Raskin</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG>e: </STRONG><A
href="mailto:araskin@3i-consulting.com"
target=_blank><STRONG>araskin@3i-consulting.com</STRONG></A></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG>p: +1 207 409 4983</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG>f: +1 806 403 4983</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><A
href="http://www.themobileworkplace.com">http://www.themobileworkplace.com</A>
<BR>The easiest way to integrate SAP with any mobile
device</DIV></STRONG></DIV></STRONG></DIV></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu on behalf of Mike
Gambier<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wed 6/28/2006 13:14<BR><B>To:</B>
sap-wug@mit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Race to the Finish
Line<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Alon,<BR><BR>One thing I tried in the past was pass the update
to a seperate Workflow<BR>instance that could receiver lots of changes and
collate them to perform a<BR>single update in one LUW.<BR><BR>Obvious
limitations were:<BR><BR>1. Hard to establish order of updates if the same field
is being modified<BR>multiple times<BR>2. How long should the receiver
'wait'?<BR>3. Do the Workflows that are handing over the updates need to know
when the<BR>update has happened? (possible event linkage)<BR><BR>In the end I
allowed the the 'Passer' Workflow to send itself along with the<BR>actual
updates it wanted to perform via the event container so that the<BR>receiver
Workflow could, if necessary, raise an event on the Passer Workflow<BR>to say
all was well or if an error occurred.<BR><BR>If the Passer Workflow didn't care
to know eiether way it didn't pass itself<BR>in the
container.<BR><BR>MGT<BR><BR>>From: "LENAHAN Kari -TSDC"
<kari.lenahan@torsdc.ca><BR>>Reply-To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group"
<sap-wug@mit.edu><BR>>To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group"
<sap-wug@mit.edu><BR>>Subject: RE: Race to the Finish Line<BR>>Date:
Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:11:38 -0400<BR>><BR>>Maybe limit trigger event with a
check function module; for example<BR>>check the tables/logs to see if a
workflow was already triggered for the<BR>>same object/key within a specific
timeframe.<BR>><BR>>Please let me know if this suggestion is way off
base. I am workflow<BR>>admin/support only, and do not do any
programming.<BR>><BR>>Thanks.<BR>><BR>>
_____<BR>><BR>>From: sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu [<A
href="mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu">mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu</A>] On
Behalf<BR>>Of Alon Raskin<BR>>Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:54
AM<BR>>To: SAP Workflow Users' Group<BR>>Subject: Race to the Finish
Line<BR>><BR>><BR>>Hi Everyone,<BR>><BR>>Problem: I have multiple
instances of the same workflow that are<BR>>triggered at the same time. Of
course, the first thing that happens is<BR>>that each instance tries to
update the Business Partner (the same one)<BR>>and this results in a large
number of temporary application errors. This<BR>>is no big deal but if I have
50 instances of the WF for the same<BR>>Business Partner then I am going to
get a lot of errored workflows.<BR>><BR>>Possible (sucky) solution: One
obvious thing I can do to alleviate this<BR>>problem is to put in a random
wait step and this will hopefully reduce<BR>>(or remove) the number of
errored workflows. I dont like this solution<BR>>as I hate putting in random
wait steps unless there is a business need<BR>>for this.<BR>><BR>>Can
anyone can suggest a better solution?<BR>><BR>>Look forward to your
input.<BR>><BR>>Alon Raskin<BR>>e: araskin@3i-consulting.com <<A
href="mailto:araskin@3i-consulting.com">mailto:araskin@3i-consulting.com</A>><BR>>p:
+1 207 409 4983<BR>>f: +1 806 403
4983<BR>><BR><BR><BR>>_______________________________________________<BR>>SAP-WUG
mailing list<BR>>SAP-WUG@mit.edu<BR>><A
href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug</A><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>SAP-WUG
mailing list<BR>SAP-WUG@mit.edu<BR><A
href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>