Commit Work

[Alon Raskin]

Here here (that's British for I agree).
 
Well I only partially agree. I still don't like the idea of doing my own explicit COMMIT WORK.
 
Alon

________________________________

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Mowry, Douglas 
Sent: Tue 6/12/2007 09:14
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: RE: Commit Work



I've never found the COMMIT WORK to be a problem for BAPIs.  Many BAPIs have a COMMIT parameter built in which works fine.  If not, just call BAPI_TRANSACTION_COMMIT immediately after your BAPI and that works fine as well.  I'll take a BAPI over a BDC any day.

 

Doug Mowry

________________________________

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Alon Raskin
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:06 AM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: RE: Commit Work

 

Hi Ed,


Thanks very much for the response. I have been burnt way too many times by BDCs. Not to mention performance implications. Perhaps it is an OK for workflows with low volumes but on an IS-U implementation (read Mike Gambier Taylors response to see what I mean) a BDC is a recipe for disaster.


Thank you for your input anyway.

 

Alon Raskin

 

________________________________

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Edward Diehl
Sent: Tue 6/12/2007 08:43
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: RE: Commit Work

Hi Alon,
I try to always use a BDC function to create a new object rather than a BAPI.  A BAPI, if it is not called as an RFC, required an explicit COMMIT WORK.  It may be some defect in my understanding, but I am not a big fan of BAPIs for several reasons and this is just one of them.
 
Regards,
Ed Diehl



________________________________

Subject: Commit Work
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:09:57 -0400
From: araskin at 3i-consulting.com
To: sap-wug at mit.edu

A colleague of mine is having an issue and I wanted to see if anyone has seen this before. I have seen this issue creep up on different implementations so I am sure I am not the first to handle this.

 

*	Step 1 creates a new document (doesn't matter what it is, its IS-U) by calling a BAPI 

*	The BAPI returns the ID of the new object which can be seen in the container of the Workflow 

*	Step 2 then calls SYSTEM.GenericInstantiate to get an instance of the newly created document 

*	Step 2 errors claiming that the object does not exist. 

I suggested to him to uncheck the Advance with Dialog step as I thought that this would 'force' the WF sub-system to do a COMMIT WORK between steps but this did not seem to work. I was sure that the Workflow sub-system always executes a COMMIT WORK between steps. Is that not the case? We did a test, and created a method where all it did was execute a COMMIT WORK. We inserted this step in between the BAPI and the System.GenericInstantiate and everything worked beautifully. So it is definitely a commit issue. Perhaps WF treats methods marked as BAPIs differently to standard methods and doesn't not do an explicit COMMIT WORK? If so, how do people get around this?
Regards,

Alon Raskin

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 8872 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20070612/dff6d1cd/attachment.bin