Clearing the Workflow buffer

Thu Jun 21 09:46:56 EDT 2007

Unfortunately in ECC 6 you can't generate a runtime version in a
non-modifiable system.

Marcia Neumann
IT Claims Development/Support

Confidentiality notice: The information included in this e-mail,
including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution or similar action is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete all copies of the original message immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
Of Mike Pokraka
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:00 AM
To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
Subject: Re: Clearing the Workflow buffer

Hi Allan,

This sticky behaviour has also made it's way back into 620 with later
patch levels. My routine is a little simpler and works 99% of the time:
Following a change, goto the test/config client and
1. Run SWU_OBUF
2. Open the WF in the WF builder
3. Menu: Workflow->Activation->Generate runtime version.

This also works in PRD where I dont't have SE37 access.
Cheers,
Mike

On Thu, June 21, 2007 8:06 am, Allan Pearson wrote:
> Since upgrading to ECC6.0 we have a variation on refreshing WF
buffers.
> Changes in the dev. Client are not reflected in the config client
(same
> box). OSS gave us the following fix which works;
>
>
>
> <Quote>
>
> Generally you have to use for every changed workflow template such
> procedure:
>
> 1. For example you have changed WSXXX in Version N. You activated it
in
>
> the your development client (RD1_120), but it is not enough now.
>
> Now you have to call after that in the client where you start your
> workflow instances (RD1_111) 3 additional steps:
>
> a) SE37 -> Function SWD_WFD_REPLICATE_FROM_9999 for WSXXX and you get
> the new runtime version N+1
>
> b) SWU_OBUF
>
> c) SE38 -> RSWDCLRBUF with parameters:
>
> Workflow Definition WSXXX Version N (version before activation by
> function)
>
> <EndQuote>
>
>
>
> Would be nice if somebody knows of a permanent fix so we can stop
doing
> this.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
> Allan Pearson
>
> T-Mobile
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of sap-wug-request at mit.edu
> Sent: 21 June 2007 00:15
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Subject: SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 57
>
>
>
> Send SAP-WUG mailing list submissions to
>
>                 sap-wug at mit.edu
>
>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
>                 http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>
>                 sap-wug-request at mit.edu
>
>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>
>                 sap-wug-owner at mit.edu
>
>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>
> than "Re: Contents of SAP-WUG digest..."
>
>
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>
>
>    1. Re: ABAP OO (Susan R. Keohan)
>
>    2. Re: Workflow Fails After Upgrade to ECC 6.0
>
>       (Paul.Bakker at osr.treasury.qld.gov.au)
>
>    3. RE: Workflow Fails After Upgrade to ECC 6.0 (Morris, Eddie)
>
>    4. Clearing the Workflow buffer (Albina Fernando)
>
>    5. RE: Clearing the Workflow buffer (Miller, Jerry)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Message: 1
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:48:58 -0400
>
> From: "Susan R. Keohan" <keohan at ll.mit.edu>
>
> Subject: Re: ABAP OO
>
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
>
> Message-ID: <467992BA.1080804 at ll.mit.edu>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> Ask for and you shall receive!
>
>
>
> We will be fortunate to enjoy a very well done session by one of our
own
>
>
> (stop blushing Mr. Pokraka) who also presented 'Classy Workflows' at
the
>
>
> ASUG Annual Conference in Atlanta.  Sadly, Mike's co-speaker, the
lovely
>
>
> and talented Anna Hill, will not be able to attend, since she works
for
>
> SAP (huh ?  How does that make sense?).  We will miss you Anna!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> John White wrote:
>
>> Thank you Jocelyn, and nice work on the blogs!
>
>>
>
>> Your enthusiasm for ABAP OO is compelling, but sadly, my workflow
>
>> experience has only been with BOR. But, I will make an effort to use
>
>> this on my next workflow.
>
>>
>
>> Is there a tutorial available? I need some very basic information to
>
>> start with! Maybe Sap TechEd 07 in Las Vegas will have a beginners
>
>> session?
>
>>
>
>> Thanks again,
>
>>
>
>> John
>
>>
>
>> ________________________________
>
>>
>
>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
> Behalf
>
>> Of Dart, Jocelyn
>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 2:24 AM
>
>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
>
>> Subject: RE: Difference between Business object method and ABAP
>
>> classmethodsin atask
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Hi John,
>
>>
>
>> Actually having worked with both ABAP OO for Workflow and BOR my
> current
>
>> opinion is - only use BOR for eventing if you are using - a standard
>
>> workflow as-is or an event technique that doesn't support OO - like
>
>> status management events.
>
>>
>
>> Otherwise stick with ABAP OO and link to the existing BOR using an
>
>> attribute of type SIBFLPORB.
>
>>
>
>> Best of both worlds.  ABAP OO is soooooooooooooooo much easier to use
>
>> for enhancements.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Regards,
>
>> Jocelyn Dart
>
>> Senior Consultant
>
>> SAP Australia Pty Ltd.
>
>> Level 1/168 Walker St.
>
>> North Sydney
>
>> NSW, 2060
>
>> Australia
>
>> T   +61 412 390 267
>
>> M   + 61 412 390 267
>
>> E   jocelyn.dart at sap.com
>
>> http://www.sap.com <http://www.sap.com/>
>
>>
>
>> The information contained in or attached to this electronic
> transmission
>
>> is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only
for
>
>> the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the
>
>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution,
>
>> copying, review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this
>
>> electronic transmission or the information contained in it is
strictly
>
>> prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in
> error,
>
>> please immediately contact the sender to arrange for the return of
the
>
>> original documents.
>
>>
>
>> Electronic transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure and
>
>> accordingly, the sender does not accept liability for any such data
>
>> corruption, interception, unauthorized amendment, viruses, delays or
> the
>
>> consequences thereof.
>
>>
>
>> Any views expressed in this electronic transmission are those of the
>
>> individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the
>
>> sender is authorized to state them to be the views of SAP AG or any
of
>
>> its subsidiaries. SAP AG, its subsidiaries, and their directors,
>
>> officers and employees make no representation nor accept any
liability
>
>> for the accuracy or completeness of the views or information
contained
>
>> herein. Please be aware that the furnishing of any pricing
> information/
>
>> business proposal herein is indicative only, is subject to change and
>
>> shall not be construed as an offer or as constituting a binding
>
>> agreement on the part of SAP AG or any of its subsidiaries to enter
> into
>
>> any relationship, unless otherwise expressly stated.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ________________________________
>
>>
>
>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
> Behalf
>
>> Of John White
>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 20 June 2007 6:53 AM
>
>> To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
>
>> Subject: RE: Difference between Business object method and ABAP class
>
>> methodsin atask
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> I don't know the answer, but here is what I found on SDN. My
> experience
>
>> has only been with BOR object, creating new, and extending existing
>
>> ones. Hope this helps!
>
>>
>
>> BOR objects is the category that have been around for a long time,
> while
>
>> CL is a (relatively) new possibility. You should use whatever is more
>
>> practical in each case. For instance, if you are working with
> employees
>
>> and everything you need is in BOR object BUS1065 it makes sense to
use
>
>> that BOR object. If you find a class that has everything you need it
>
>> makes (even more) sense to use that.
>
>>
>
>> If you have to create a completely new object type you should try to
>
>> create a class instead of a new BOR object. If you simply need a
> little
>
>> bit of additional functionality or a new virtual attribute, my
>
>> recommendation would be to extend the object type that exists instead
> of
>
>> trying to create a class that extends a BOR object.
>
>>
>
>> and,
>
>> ABAP CLASS
>
>> Template for objects in ABAP Objects. Defined using CLASS - ENDCLASS
>
>> either globally in a class pool or locally in another ABAP program.
> The
>
>> definition of a class is made up of a declaration section for the
>
>> declaration of theclass components and animplementation section for
> the
>
>> implementation of the methods.
>
>> BOR-OBJECT TYPES
>
>> mySAP Technology service and directory of all object types (business
>
>> object types, organization object types and technical object types)
in
>
>> hierarchical order.
>
>> The object types are each assigned to a packet (and thus indirectly
> also
>
>> to an application component).
>
>> Directory of all object types in hierarchical order.
>
>> The object types are each assigned a development class (and thus
>
>> indirectly also to an application component).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ________________________________
>
>>
>
>> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
> Behalf
>
>> Of Albina Fernando
>
>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:41 PM
>
>> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
>
>> Subject: Difference between Business object method and ABAP class
>
>> methods in atask
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Hi,
>
>>
>
>>   Can anyone tell me the difference between using Business Object
> method
>
>> and Class methods in the tasks of the Workflow. For eg. When creating
> a
>
>> task we have 2 options. Either Assign a Business Object method or a
> ABAP
>
>> Object class method. So I need to know the difference between the
two.
>
>> And also the advantages of using the two...
>
>>   Thanks a lot for all ur support.
>
>>
>
>> Thanks
>
>> Albina
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> This email may contain confidential or privileged information for the
>
>> intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please
> do
>
>> not use or disseminate the information, notify the sender and delete
> it
>
>> from your system. Thanks
>
>>
>
>>
______________________________________________________________________
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>
>>
>
>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may
>
>> contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information
>
>> which may be protected from disclosure under law, and is
>
>> intended solely for the use of the individual, group, or entity
>
>> to whom this e-mail is addressed.  If you are not one of the
>
>> named recipients, please notify the sender by e-mail and
>
>> delete this message immediately from your computer.  Any
>
>> other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
>
>> copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  Thank you for
>
>> your assistance.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> SAP-WUG mailing list
>
>> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
>
> --
>
> Susan R. Keohan
>
> SAP Workflow Developer
>
> MIT Lincoln Laboratory
>
> 244 Wood Street
>
> LI-200
>
> Lexington, MA. 02420
>
> Phone: 781-981-3561
>
> Fax:   781-981-1607
>
> keohan at ll.mit.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Message: 2
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:24:38 +1000
>
> From: Paul.Bakker at osr.treasury.qld.gov.au
>
> Subject: Re: Workflow Fails After Upgrade to ECC 6.0
>
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
>
> Message-ID:
>
>
>
<OF09F3F4BD.E80E5A8E-ON4A257300.0074E5A7-4A257300.00759B01 at treasury.qld.
> gov.au>
>
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> Joanne,
>
>
>
>  This kind of error occurs during binding, when a source *structure*
(as
>
> opposed to field) in a container does not match a target structure.
>
> Unfortunately, it won't be picked up by syntax checks or one-on-one
>
> testing, unless you provide both both source and target.
>
>
>
> If you can pinpoint the step in the workflow where it fails, and
closely
>
> look at the *structure* variables that are in the binding, then you
> should
>
> find the culprit.
>
>
>
> 'Check'ing the bindings in each step should also help.
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Paul Bakker
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> |---------+-------------------------------->
>
> |         |           "Joanne Johnson"     |
>
> |         |           <JoanneJohnson at jo-ann|
>
> |         |           stores.com>          |
>
> |         |           Sent by:             |
>
> |         |           sap-wug-bounces at mit.e|
>
> |         |           du                   |
>
> |         |                                |
>
> |         |                                |
>
> |         |           20/06/2007 23:43     |
>
> |         |           Please respond to    |
>
> |         |           "SAP Workflow Users' |
>
> |         |           Group"               |
>
> |         |                                |
>
> |---------+-------------------------------->
>
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ----------------------------------------------|
>
>   |
> |
>
>   |       To:       <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> |
>
>   |       cc:
> |
>
>   |       Subject:  Workflow Fails After Upgrade to ECC 6.0
> |
>
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ----------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> I created a custom workflow last year while we were in SAP v4.7.  We
are
>
> currently in the process of upgrading to ECC 6.0 (Basis pkg level
>
> SAPKB70011).  This workflow no longer works in 6.0.  It fails with an
> error
>
> message OL383 "The source and target structure have a different number
> of
>
> fields".   I get this problem whether the workflow was created in 4.7
> and
>
> not worked until 6.0 or if it was created and worked in 6.0.
>
>
>
> I researched this error message and found a number of OSS Notes that
> imply
>
> that there are lots of workflow problems in ECC 6.0 but none of them
> refer
>
> to the BOR I am using (BKPF).  I did have several notes applied in 6.0
> to
>
> prevent potential problems (OSS Note 887076 - Incorrect Binding After
>
> Upgrade and executed pgm ZRSWD_BINDING_RESTORE and OSS Note 1043988 -
> Short
>
> Dump When Workflow Restarted) however, they made no impact on the
error.
>
>
>
> I think the problem is a binding problem because the method that is
> failing
>
> is the IMPORT_FROM_BOR_CONTAINER however, when I test this method, it
> seems
>
> to work ok.  There are no syntax errors anywhere in the workflow or in
> the
>
> business object BKPF or ZBKPF.
>
>
>
> I also noticed that BOR BKPF has a new method in 6.0 called
> BKPF.GetARLData
>
> but that's related to ArchiveLink Data so I don't think that's causing
> the
>
> problem since I'm not executing that method.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions or insight?  Thanks for the help.
>
>
>
> Joanne Johnson
>
> Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> SAP-WUG mailing list
>
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
> ******
>
>
>
> Only an individual or entity who is intended to be a recipient of this
> e-mail may access or use the information contained in this e-mail or
any
> of its attachments.  Opinions contained in this e-mail or any of its
> attachments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Queensland
> Treasury.
>
>
>
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
may
> be legally privileged and the subject of copyright.  If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify Queensland Treasury
> immediately and erase all copies of the e-mail and the attachments.
> Queensland Treasury uses virus scanning software.  However, it is not
> liable for viruses present in this e-mail or in any attachment.
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
> ******
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Message: 3
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:33:55 +0200
>
> From: "Morris, Eddie" <eddie.morris at sap.com>
>
> Subject: RE: Workflow Fails After Upgrade to ECC 6.0
>
> To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
>
> Message-ID:
>
>
> <E8A49408428BC34DA7C4FADD5237FAA20709379E at dewdfe22.wdf.sap.corp>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
>
> Hi Joanne,
>
>
>
> In relation to the error message OL383 can you check the method
>
> associated with the step that shows this error.
>
>
>
> The problem may be that an export parameter is incorrectly filled or
not
>
> filled at all in your method code. You must make sure that the
variable
>
> is filled before it is exported to the container and do not call
>
> SWC_SET_ELEMENT unless your variable is filled. E.g
>
>
>
>
>
> Data: OBJTYPE             LIKE SWOTOBJID-OBJTYPE.
>
> ...
>
>       SWC_GET_OBJECT_TYPE BKPF_obj OBJTYPE.
>
>       IF NOT OBJTYPE IS INITIAL.
>
>         SWC_SET_ELEMENT CONTAINER 'BKPF_obj' BKPF_obj.
>
>       ENDIF.
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe this can help.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Eddie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
Behalf
>
> Of Joanne Johnson
>
> Sent: 20 June 20, 2007 14:44
>
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
>
> Subject: Workflow Fails After Upgrade to ECC 6.0
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> I created a custom workflow last year while we were in SAP v4.7.  We
are
>
> currently in the process of upgrading to ECC 6.0 (Basis pkg level
>
> SAPKB70011).  This workflow no longer works in 6.0.  It fails with an
>
> error message OL383 "The source and target structure have a different
>
> number of fields".   I get this problem whether the workflow was
created
>
> in 4.7 and not worked until 6.0 or if it was created and worked in
6.0.
>
>
>
> I researched this error message and found a number of OSS Notes that
>
> imply that there are lots of workflow problems in ECC 6.0 but none of
>
> them refer to the BOR I am using (BKPF).  I did have several notes
>
> applied in 6.0 to prevent potential problems (OSS Note 887076 -
>
> Incorrect Binding After Upgrade and executed pgm ZRSWD_BINDING_RESTORE
>
> and OSS Note 1043988 - Short Dump When Workflow Restarted) however,
they
>
> made no impact on the error.
>
>
>
> I think the problem is a binding problem because the method that is
>
> failing is the IMPORT_FROM_BOR_CONTAINER however, when I test this
>
> method, it seems to work ok.  There are no syntax errors anywhere in
the
>
> workflow or in the business object BKPF or ZBKPF.
>
>
>
> I also noticed that BOR BKPF has a new method in 6.0 called
>
> BKPF.GetARLData but that's related to ArchiveLink Data so I don't
think
>
> that's causing the problem since I'm not executing that method.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions or insight?  Thanks for the help.
>
>
>
> Joanne Johnson
>
> Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> SAP-WUG mailing list
>
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Message: 4
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:33:50 +0530
>
> From: Albina Fernando <Albina.Fernando at lntinfotech.com>
>
> Subject: Clearing the Workflow buffer
>
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
>
> Message-ID:
>
>
>
<OF17CD1152.6D49BB0F-ON65257300.007EB19A-65257300.007EB19E at lntinfotech.c
> om>
>
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>
> URL:
>
http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20070621/bde9855c/a
> ttachment-0001.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Message: 5
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:14:32 -0700
>
> From: "Miller, Jerry" <Jerry.Miller at NOVELLUS.com>
>
> Subject: RE: Clearing the Workflow buffer
>
> To: "'SAP Workflow Users' Group'" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
>
> Message-ID:
>
>
> <63B36FB1288C1A4D8AE8B807730D47CF824564 at EVS1.corp.novellus.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> Call me and I will walk you thru one possible solution. (408.577.4513)
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>
>
> From: Albina Fernando [mailto:Albina.Fernando at lntinfotech.com]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:04 PM
>
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
>
> Subject: Clearing the Workflow buffer
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
>   I have one problem.. Yesterday we had transported a new task to
>
> Production. Now the new task is not reflecting in production. We
checkd
> the
>
> Workflow runtime version. in the development system as well as the
>
> produciton system, the active, running version is the same. We had
faced
> a
>
> similar problem earlier also. but he same problem got resolved on its
> own. I
>
> had read in the Workflow book that every midnight the workflow buffers
> are
>
> refreshed. And then automatically the tasks come to the new version.
Now
> we
>
> have waited for almost a day.. but nothing seems to be changing . Can
we
>
> manually clear the buffer. I suppose there is one transaction SWU_OBUF
> to
>
> clear the workflow buffer. Can anyone advise me if this is the correct
> way
>
> of doing or is there any job that clears/refreshes the runtime buffer.
> How
>
> should we proceed in such cases.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Albina
>
>
>
>
>
> This email may contain confidential or privileged information for the
>
> intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please
do
> not
>
> use or disseminate the information, notify the sender and delete it
from
>
> your system. Thanks
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>
> URL:
>
http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20070620/1075e6f6/a
> ttachment.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> SAP-WUG mailing list
>
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
>
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
>
>
>
> End of SAP-WUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 57
>
> ***************************************
>
>
> T-Mobile (UK) Limited
> Company Registered Number: 02382161
> Registered Office Address: Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield,
> Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW
> Registered in England and Wales
>
> NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
>
> This email (including attachments) is confidential. If you are not the
> intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email
from
> your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose.
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>

-- 
Mike Pokraka
Senior Consultant
Workflow Connections
Mobile: +44(0)7786 910855

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