<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi,<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>We did not rebuild our WFs as most of the 'old' tables that we cared about were kept in ECC 6, and we have survived with only a few problems that were fixable. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>So it can be done if you choose to do so, we're the proof of that :)</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>You need to consider your use of multi-line container tables (new &ParForEach& syntax), fixed date constants used in bindings (there's a bug with unicode parsing that can be fixed in the builder) and also tweak the odd dummy node here and there. Oh, and apply quite a few OSS Notes n the way! </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Don't worry, the Workflow Gods have put together a very handy OSS Note that explains a lot of these issues. I don't recall the number off-hand but it's easy to find.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>But you also need to consider the 'new' stuff coming along with ECC 6 that might make your old stuff redundant.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Bear in mind the new container table options coming in and the new locking profile options too.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Mike GT</div><div><br>> From: wug@workflowconnections.com<br>> To: sap-wug@mit.edu<br>> Subject: RE: Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC 6.0<br>> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:07:48 +0000<br>> <br>> I agree, definitely rebuild your workflows.<br>> For most other development objects you can use SAPLink<br>> http://code.google.com/p/saplink/ to copy them across. It won't do BOR<br>> objects though. <br>> <br>> Another problem with transports is that the new system won't be the original<br>> source system for those objects, so any later changes will be modifications.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu] On<br>> > Behalf Of Paul.Bakker@osr.treasury.qld.gov.au<br>> > Sent: 11 March 2009 04:55<br>> > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group<br>> > Subject: Re: Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC 6.0<br>> > <br>> > Hi,<br>> > <br>> > We are going through exactly the same exercise at the moment. We chose<br>> > to<br>> > simply reimplement the workflows.<br>> > <br>> > It was not a tough decision because:<br>> > (1) we don't have that many workflows (about a dozen)<br>> > (2) they are not that complex<br>> > (3) the underlying objects / DDIC elements had to be re-implemented<br>> > anyway,<br>> > in our brand new customer namespace.<br>> > <br>> > I think that using transports would be a risky enterprise, as you would<br>> > be<br>> > hardpressed to<br>> > ensure that _all_ dependent objects and config are transported at the<br>> > same<br>> > time.<br>> > There are also ECC 6.0 compatibility issues to consider when<br>> > transporting.<br>> > <br>> > Hope this helps.<br>> > <br>> > cheers<br>> > Paul<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > Ibrahim Khan<br>> > <ikhansap@gmail.c<br>> > om><br>> > To<br>> > Sent by: "SAP Workflow Users' Group"<br>> > sap-wug-bounces@m <SAP-WUG@mit.edu><br>> > it.edu<br>> > cc<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > Subject<br>> > 11/03/2009 02:27 Re: Migration from SAP 4.7 to<br>> > ECC<br>> > PM 6.0<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > Please respond to<br>> > "SAP Workflow<br>> > Users' Group"<br>> > <sap-wug@mit.edu><br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > Hi Worfklow experts,<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> SAP-WUG mailing list<br>> SAP-WUG@mit.edu<br>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug<br></div><br /><hr />Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/' target='_new'>Try it Now!</a></body>
</html>