You know what I hate?

[Srinivasan Ramanan]

Dear WUG,

I have written a documentation for our client about where freely definable 
objects , texts and etc., are possible.
I made it a point not to start with Z or Y. But as for bug hunting and 
identification concerned a prefix would definitely be a boon. Hence in my 
documentation I defined that prefix as follows.

               1. Where ever the freely defined objects are Co.code specific 
= use value of Co.code
               2. Where ever the freely defined objects are Plan       
specific = use value of Plant
               3. Where ever the freely defined objects are Whse     
specific = use value of Whse num.
               4. Where ever the freely defined objects are object    
specific = use coined value.
                      e.g : Object is ZBUS2032 for Credit Memo for Co.code 
USA1
                              suggested prefix is = USA1_CM_changed , 
USA1_CM_approved

This my seem unnecessary at the beginning, but it is really helpful so that 
when cross-client workflow speciifc events are created , both developer and 
users are comfortable in understanding the design.

We have really reaped benifits of this type of definition in the freely 
definable texts with our client.

regards
Srinivasan


>From: "Alon Raskin" <araskin at 3i-consulting.com>
>Reply-To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
>To: <sap-wug at mit.edu>
>Subject: You know what I hate?
>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:59:29 -0500
>
>I know that this is mostly an academic argument but I would love to hear 
>peoples thoughts on this...
>
>You know what I hate? I hate it when I look at a Z Business Object 
>(delegated sub-type) and someone has created a method called zUpdate or an 
>attribute called zAmount. Is there really a need for the 'z' in the name of 
>the attribute/method? Perhaps there is something I am missing here so 
>please feel free to point out the error of my ways.
>
>Do people do this because they don't realise that they can redefine an SAP 
>delivered attribute/method? Or are they concerned that SAP will deliver an 
>attribute with the exact same name? I assume that the redefined 
>method/attribute would not be effected but perhaps someone has had this 
>happen...
>
>I understand why people do it with append fields on a table but why do this 
>for a BOR sub-type?
>
>Regards,
>
>Alon


>_______________________________________________
>SAP-WUG mailing list
>SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug

_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song.  Get a customized station.  Try MSN Radio powered 
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001