<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Hi Mike, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I don’t see this as a major hurdle. It is possible to have
the same business key for different objects in different systems. Hence they ‘localised’
object references. This makes even more sense when you consider the object type
that also forms part of a LPOR: class ZCL_HR_POSITION may differ between
systems. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The only thing that would be unique is a GUID, so a strategy may
be to localise your remote objects by means of a GUID and a mapping table. Your
local objects are created using a GUID and mapped to the remote business key. Using
persistency service, this is actually far easier to implement than it sounds,
and you could continue to work with your document number or whatever in WF and
nobody would be any wiser to the fact that the object resides elsewhere. It is
theoretically possible to even do without GUIDs or mapping tables, but I’d
personally avoid that for stability reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Cheers, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu
[mailto:sap-wug-bounces@mit.edu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike Gambier<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 07 January 2010 09:42<br>
<b>To:</b> sap-wug@mit.edu<br>
<b>Subject:</b> LPOR restriction v tightly-coupled SAP systems<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Hello WUGgers,<br>
<br>
When we upgraded to ECC 6 early last year I bemoaned the apparent
demise of the Logical System field since the Workflow Gods had deemed
it to be obsolete. Instead they commanded a system-wide switch to
the Local Persistence way of doing things (LPOR). <br>
<br>
Despite my concern at the time, back then we didn't really have much of
need to use LOGSYS because: <br>
<br>
a) we don't use multe-clients (we still don't) <br>
<br>
and <br>
<br>
b) we only really had 1 SAP box to worry about.<br>
<br>
So I was only puzzled on a theoretical level.<br>
<br>
That picture has changed though because our landscape has evolved. We now have
a PI box and an ERP box playing with each other. Very soon the latter will be
tightly coupled to a new CRM box too. And all three will have Workflow running
on them in various forms for various reasons.<br>
<br>
And there's the rub...if I wanted to model a Workflow in CRM that could
natively make use of object instances that actually pointing to the ERP system
this doesn't appear to be something that conforms to the new WF rules. I
can already imagine a whole host of Business Processes that might want to
straddle the middle-ground and work with instances on boths sides...<br>
<br>
Of course the LOGSYS field is still there (for now) and I suppose I could make
use of it anyway and build msyelf nice RFC-based Object wrappers and shoe-horn
remote instances into our Workflows. <strong><span style='font-family:
"Verdana","sans-serif"'>But</span></strong>, I can't help but think that SAP
have really missed a trick here, particularly with clients who have been
suckered/persuaded* into buying a CRM-ERP platform (*delete where applicable).<br>
<br>
Is anyone else here flummoxed by this decision or am I the only one howling at
this particular moon?<br>
<br>
Mike GT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Add
other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. <a
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394593/direct/01/%20" target="_new">Find
out how.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<BR><BR>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4750 (20100107) __________<BR><BR>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.<BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.eset.com">http://www.eset.com</A><BR> </body>
</html>