Transaction message lost in UWL
Kjetil Kilhavn
kjetilk at statoil.com
Wed Mar 9 04:11:53 EST 2005
By all means, I find SAP much more reasonable than Microsoft. SAP will
normally reply to messages, and there aren't many problems with SAP
compared to the crap they distribute from Seattle. Last, but definitely not
least - SAP does usually not actively prevent you from customising things.
My excuses to everyone in SAP - it probably came across too harsh.
However, "works as designed" is really not an answer - who believes in
error-free designs? It is an answer suitable when you don't really have
anything to support your conclusion that there is nothing wrong with your
solution. In short, it is an answer one could expect from Microsoft. Can't
open Office 95 documents in Office 2003? Sir, it works just as designed.
Can't install Windows on DR-DOS? Sir, that is just as we designed it (as
was later proven).
I can reply the same to the inquiries here when they say something doesn't
work as it should. I can even say "works exactly as you specified it"
sometimes. If I do that the answer will come back quick, telling me either
to change the design or that they are changing the specification.
--
Kjetil Kilhavn
Michael
Pokraka To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
<workflow at qui cc: (bcc: Kjetil Kilhavn)
rky.me.uk> Subject: Re: Transaction message lost in UWL
Sent by:
sap-wug-bounc
es at mit.edu
08.03.2005
15:35
Please
respond to
"SAP Workflow
Users' Group"
The good news is that cProjects has exactly the message console that you're
after, with a few extra goodies. I think it may also be in CRM, but I've
hardly
touched the web side of it.
The UWL problem is not strictly the UWL - it calls a SAP transaction in a
WinGUI frame of the browser, which in turn executes the work item. When the
WI
is done, it shows the message "WI executed...". I agree I have experienced
the
MS attitude from SAP before, but in their defence so far they're being
reasonable enough about it. In fact, most usefully they've described the
problem in more detail: there is no guarantee of the transaction returning
a
message, so _something_ needs to be displayed. So it is a bit of a tricky
one.
Thanks for your feedback,
Mike
(running on SuSE Linux since giving up viruses a long time ago)
Oh, Lotus Notes? ... that mailer that cannot sort by subject (!) and is a
PITA
to try to file replies with the original message... don't get me started :
-)
--- Kjetil Kilhavn <kjetilk at statoil.com> wrote:
>
> For what it is worth: I agree. Of course the more specific message from
the
> transaction is most important.
> We don't use UWL, so I don't know much about it. It would be better if
you
> had a "message console" with a short message history. It could even drain
> itself by setting a timer to remove the message after a minute to avoid
> confusing users who return to the UWL after doing something else for a
> while.
>
> I can tell SAP has learned something from their co-operation with
> Microsoft. The art of saying: we know best.
> They just need a " - so sod off!" at the end to make the arrogance
> complete.
> --
> Kjetil Kilhavn - who uses SuSE Linux at home since IBM gave up on OS/2
(if
> only they would port SOM and WPS to Linux...)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael
>
> Pokraka To: SAP Workflow User Group
> <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> <workflow at qui cc: (bcc: Kjetil Kilhavn)
>
> rky.me.uk> Subject: Transaction message
> lost in UWL
> Sent by:
>
> sap-wug-bounc
>
> es at mit.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> 07.03.2005
>
> 17:15
>
> Please
>
> respond to
>
> "SAP Workflow
>
> Users' Group"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
> An annoying 'feature' of the UWL is that it doesn't display a
transaction's
> message when a WI is executed. Instead of e.g. "Document 5200011111
> posted", it
> comes back with "Work item executed (new processing status:
"Completed")".
>
> Yes, I've posted this to the list before and had no replies. However in
the
> meantime I've also queried this with OSS and have had a partial answer:
> This
> works as designed.
>
> Now, I think that the message from a transaction is possibly important. I
> didn't get any definite answer from OSS yet, it has been passed on to
> development. I would however like to get some feedback from folks 'out
> there'
> if anyone has found this to be a problem in their environment, and/or how
> important this is - just to get an idea of whether my client is the only
> one
> who thinks that a lack of feedback from the transaction is a critical
> shortcoming (and I agree).
>
> Any comments appreciated,
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
> intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of
the
> information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
> addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and
delete
> this message.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
_______________________________________________
SAP-WUG mailing list
SAP-WUG at mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the
information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
this message.
Thank you.
More information about the SAP-WUG
mailing list