Workflow upgrades from 3.1H to 4.6X
Rickayzen, Alan
alan.rickayzen at sap.com
Fri Nov 17 03:45:20 EST 2000
Alon,
You are definitely correct, design comes first. Even though omitting the
object/task binding will increase performance you should not blindly try to
eliminate this binding at all costs.
However, you will often find that the task attributes are often identical in
name to the method attributes (they are generated automatically) so there is
nothing to be lost by using this implicit binding. When there are good
reasons for using parameters with different names then go ahead and define
an explicit binding.
Incidentally, the container copy was implemented in response to feedback
from users who felt that three levels of binding was unnecessary from a
pragmatic point of view.
Kind regards,
Alan
PS: Thanks Elizabeth for mentioning this note. It was not referenced in the
generic upgrade note (152871) but this has now been corrected. If you notice
omissions in this note please contact me directly (alan.rickayzen at sap.com).
-----Original Message-----
From: Raskin Alon x8008 [mailto:ARaskin at Citipower.com.au]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 2:24 AM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Workflow upgrades from 3.1H to 4.6X
Hi Graeme,
I disagree. The decision to add parameters to Methods should be based on
consideration such as good design (ie . maintainability of code, etc) and
not technical upgrade considerations. The time you may save now will be lost
when it comes to maintaining your objects to model new/changed business
processes.
I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this one.
Regards,
Alon Raskin
CitiPower - Workflow Consultant
Mob : 0411 691 396
-----Original Message-----
From: MacPherson, Graeme (AU - Melbourne)
[mailto:gmacpherson at dc.com]
Sent: Friday, 17 November 2000 10:02 AM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Workflow upgrades from 3.1H to 4.6X
Hi Alan
I like your suggestions - thanks.
Also, thanks to Elizabeth for the note - will definitely
need to apply that
one.
I suppose that the lesson to be learned from this is not to
design object
methods with parameters?
Cheers
Graeme MacPherson
Senior Consultant
Deloitte Consulting, Melbourne
Ph: +613 9208 7100
Mob: 0414 473 554
-----Original Message-----
From: Rickayzen, Alan [mailto:alan.rickayzen at sap.com]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2000 20:53
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Workflow upgrades from 3.1H to 4.6X
I'd really appreciate any feedback on this issue so that I
can update our
notes.
I suspect that one solution consists of 2 steps.
Step 1: prior to the upgrade, modify the object methods so
that they can
query the work item attributes when a return code shows that
the container
element is missing (which will be the case for the old flows
after the
upgrade).
Step 2: in preparation for the upgrade create a new version
of the flow
using the new attributes. This may not be imported before
the upgrade
because the attributes don't exist in 3x.
Graeme, in your particular case if you are concerned about
task<->method
bindings there might be a simpler solution. You could delete
the bindings!
Task<->method bindings are optional. If they are not
defined, the whole
container is copied. You will still need to apply step 1
above but there
should be no other side effects.
Thanks Peter for the positive feedback,
Alan Rickayzen
SAP AG
-----Original Message-----
From: MacPherson, Graeme (AU - Melbourne)
[mailto:gmacpherson at dc.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 4:22 AM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Workflow upgrades from 3.1H to 4.6X
Thanks Peter.
I was thinking more about scenarios where I have used the
standard container
elements (which no longer exist as of V4.0A) in bindings to
tasks and object
methods (refer to OSS note 178185).
Would the 31H runtime version of the workflow definition
still work for old
workflows (status "In Process") after upgrade to 4.6X or
should the 31H
instances be "flushed" before upgrade?
I assume that eventhough certain 31H standard container
elements dont exist
in 4.6X any more, the 31H workflow definition should still
contain those
standard container elements and old workflows should be
alright after
upgrade but I am not certain of this.
Maybe someone who has experienced this exact scenario could
confirm this.
Cheers
Graeme MacPherson
Senior Consultant
Deloitte Consulting, Melbourne
Ph: +613 9208 7100
Mob: 0414 473 554
-----Original Message-----
From: Roehlen, Peter [mailto:PRoehlen at powercor.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2000 12:25
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Workflow upgrades from 3.1H to 4.6X
Graeme,
Whilst we weren't using workflow extensively in before our
upgrade to 4.6B
(we were on 3.0F), we did have 3 background customer tasks
that were running
several thousand times a day using Network/PM Order status
change as a
trigger.
Aside from having to update the BDC programming in the
business object type
method (to cater for changed screen numbers), these customer
tasks continue
to run flawlessly in our production system as customer
tasks. There was
zero effort required in workflow development to make these
work in 4.6B even
though SAP have moved away from customer tasks to standard
tasks.
Regards
Peter Roehlen
Team Lead - SAP Technical & Development
Powercor Australia Ltd
(03) 5430 4704 / 0409 950 263
-----Original Message-----
From: MacPherson, Graeme (AU - Melbourne)
[mailto:gmacpherson at dc.com]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2000 11:50
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Workflow upgrades from 3.1H to 4.6X
Hi Guys
Would anyone like to share their "war stories" on upgrading
workflows from
31H to 4.6B/C. I have reviewed the OSS notes on this matter
but would like
some input on strategy and possibly some lessons learned
(do's and dont's)
which are not documented on the OSS. In particular, how is
the continuity
ensured because I am assuming that there is very little one
can do about the
active workflow instances created in 31H.
Do you have a cutover point when you switch off the 31H
workflows and ask
users to action all outstanding work items before upgrade ?
Following this I presume you would have to take stock of all
unactioned work
items and recreate the workflows after upgrade using a
workflow start
transaction (presuming the volume was not too high).
Any comments would be appreciated.
Regards
Graeme MacPherson
Senior Consultant
Deloitte Consulting, Melbourne
Ph: +613 9208 7100
Mob: 0414 473 554
**********************************************************************
Powercor Australia Ltd. This email and any file attachments
are
confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this
email in
error please tell us immediately by return email and delete
the
document.
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
CitiPower Pty ACN 064 651 056
**********************************************************************
More information about the SAP-WUG
mailing list