AW: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

[Thomas Lorenz]

RE: deleted task shows up in new workflow instancesHi Alon,

maybe it's my experience. I've never heard about a workflow which takes such
a long time. 2 Years for one workitem is a sort of "workwait".
Also there are no technical reasons, I would separate the steps because
there is so much time between them. 


Greetings,

Thomas 
  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
  Von: Alon Raskin [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]Im Auftrag von Alon
Raskin
  Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2005 15:59
  An: SAP Workflow Users' Group
  Betreff: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report


  Hi Thomas,

  I appreciate your input but I was wondering WHY you have this preference?
Is it performance related? Or simply past experience?

  Alon Raskin
  e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com
  p: +61 3 9625 2189 (Head Office)
  f:  +61 3 8610 1239 
  c:  +1 207 756 0370
  w: http://www.3i-consulting.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Thomas Lorenz
  Sent: Thu 5/5/2005 09:46
  To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
  Subject: AW: 2 year wait vs Batch Report


  Hi Alon,

  i would prefer an additional ABAP Report to clear the field, which runs as
Batch once a day. In my opinion it makes little sense to keep these
Workflows for two years in "running" mode.

  Greetings,

  Thomas Lorenz


  mobil + 49 170 3558989
  mail tlorenz at web-ls.de
  fon + 49 228 3867985
  fax + 49 228 3868844


    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
    Von: Alon Raskin [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]Im Auftrag von Alon
Raskin
    Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2005 14:53
    An: SAP Workflow Users' Group
    Betreff: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report


    Hi Ram,

    Thanks for the input. My problem with this approach is that I now have a
batch job scheduled for each instance of the workflow (around 400 or so)...
I guess it not a big deal but I am not sure I am seeing what the advantages
of using this over the deadline monitoring report...

    Alon Raskin
    e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com
    p: +61 3 9625 2189 (Head Office)
    f:  +61 3 8610 1239 
    c:  +1 207 756 0370
    w: http://www.3i-consulting.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Tiwari, Rammanohar
    Sent: Thu 5/5/2005 08:49
    To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
    Subject: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report


    I think there might be another option ( Not sure though ) :

    Just after that step in your workflow put another step which will
schedule a Batch Job (FM BP_JOB_CREATE)  with release date = sy-datum + 2
years.
    I am not sure but system restart should not affect it. 

    The Batch job will then trigger an event ( after two years )  to
re-start the terminated workflow.

    Thanks,
    Ram

      -----Original Message-----
      From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]On
Behalf Of Alon Raskin
      Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:26 PM
      To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
      Subject: 2 year wait vs Batch Report


      Hi Everyone,

      I would love to hear peoples opinions on this issue.

      We have a situation where a workflow has to do update a field and then
wait for 2 years before clearing that field. There are two possibilities to
this issue.

      1. Put in a 2 year wait step
      2. Terminate the workflow and run a nightly batch job which would
query some table and determine if 2 years have passed and then reset the
field accordingly.

      Currently I am leaning towards option 1 as I really don't see a
difference in option 1 and option 2. Ultimately they are all just batch jobs
which check dates and then do some processing. The volumes here are very
low.

      Your thoughts?

      Alon Raskin
      e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com
      w: http://www.3i-consulting.com

    This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an
intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20050505/28a7f5f1/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 1268 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20050505/28a7f5f1/attachment.bin