BOR and Perfmance

[Alon Raskin]

Hi Mark,
 
I am all for the use of swc_refresh_object. I am a bit surprised about the
COMMIT WORK AND WAIT though because I was under the impression that it was a
cardinal sin to do a COMMIT WORK inside a method (since the Workflow
sub-system does one for you). I would be interested in hearing what people
have to say about that one.
 
What I was trying to find out in the previuos post is whether an instance
lives is reused in subsequent steps of a workflow or is it re-instantiated
every time? From what I gathered from Michael, as long as the advance with
dialog flag is checked then the instance is reused (which is good).  I hope
this holds true for tasks that are running under WF-BATCH in background?
 
Alon
 
-----Original Message-----
From: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark
Huffman
Sent: 19 July 2004 20:02
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: BOR and Perfmance
 
Alon and Mike,
 
I have done a lot of production support jobs in the past few years and in
general have often used swc_refresh_object SELF to tidy up custom methods
that were making timing assumptions and causing errors.
 
These days I try to avoid using 'commit work and wait' in background posting
methods, but sometimes resort to that as well, especially where the code I
am trying to troubleshoot has commits sprinkled all through it.
 
Mark
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Pokraka" <workflow at quirky.me.uk>
To: <SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: BOR and Perfmance
 
 
Hi Alon,
I think in theory if 'advance with dialog' works then it would also retain
the object instance.
In practice however it just goes plain weird. I had an issue on 4.6c with a
virtual attribute that didn't have a 'CLEAR' after the 'DATA' statement. Not
strictly necessary one may think...
WRONG! The attribute was used in the inbox description. Displaying it and
then clicking on another workitem which DIDN'T have a value for that
attribute would show the previous item's attribute value. So somehow it was
buffered across instances when using the inbox.
I asked OSS about the theory/mechanics behind this without much success.
 
Could I also add to the original question the idea of a Persistent Object
Reference in this context... does that improve buffering or make it worse?
 
Cheers
Mike
 
Alon Raskin wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I trust that everyone had a good weekend.
>
> One of the nice things about the BOR is the buffering approach that it
> provides. When you first access a Dictionary attribute, the whole
> record
is
> retrieved and stored in a structure so any subsequent accesses to
Dictionary
> attributes do not result in a call to the DB.
>
> My query is: Between two steps of a workflow, are all the BOR object
> instances re-instantiated? I got the feeling that they were but was
unsure.
> If that is the case then doesnt that defeat the whole purpose of the
> buffering approach?
>
> I look forward to your thoughts/comments.
>
> Alon
>
>