ECC 6.0 SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not being updated properly

[Mike Pokraka]

Hi Mike,

My understanding is that the new classes aren't really supposed to
understand logical systems. If you look at the whole way that object
representations are done nowadays, it all uses Local Persistent Object
References - the emphasis here would be *Local*. So the logical system is
irrelevant. This would explain why it's been dropped and why SAP don't
care anymore.

Remote references are a different beast and all supposed to be handled via
GUIDs (or possibly mapping tables). It is also no coincidence that the
maximum key length for Classes has been reduced from BOR's 70 down to 32
chars.

Might not help your cause but perhaps explains some things....

Cheers,
Mike



On Mon, April 7, 2008 4:32 pm, Mike Gambier wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This problem get a little bit deeper. I'm pretty sure that SAP has missed
> a trick with the 'new' 'Structure Persistence' code designed to cope with
> the 'old' BOR Object Container table SWW_CONTOB.I've been looking at the
> new ECC 6.0 code and made a bit of a discovery. Basically, the ABAP
> Classes do not understand what a Logical System is. They do not possess
> any attribute to store it, nor do they have any means to pass it through
> to functionality that will eventually invoke database updates. Simply put:
> they always assume you are dealing with local instances.
>
> Now I have absolutely no idea if this affects any of you who are using the
> 'new' OO container but it certainly affects us who want to stick with the
> 'old' BOR Container because a Logical System can be 'local' or 'remote',
> i.e. it could point to the same client/system combination you are working
> on, or it could point to a completely different client/system altogether.
>
> Take ABAP Class Method [CL_SWF_CNT_PX_CONTAINER->_container_write_values]
> as a point in  case. This method is supposed to replace the old code that
> eventually calls Function Modules SWW_WI_CONTAINER_INSERT and
> SWW_WI_CONTAINER_MODIFY.
>
> It manages to work at the moment because it invokes FM SWO_CREATE which
> has a nifty subroutine in it (logical_system_handling) that copes with a
> blank value for LOGSYS being passed in. So the instantiation of an
> instance will only fail if the key is invalid for the local client. But
> since this FM does not pass out the LOGSYS value it determines at runtime
> the calling Method has no way of catching this.
>
> Worse still, when Method
> [CL_SWF_CNT_PX_CONTAINER->_container_write_values] finally gets around to
> carrying out the database updates (which it does directly I might add, bad
> SAP!) it has no way of ever passing through a decent value in LOGSYS.
>
> Hence we have blanks. And hence, I think, SAP has forgotten something.
>
> At least, that's my take on things anyway. Perhaps people here have some
> thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike GT
>
>
> From: madgambler at hotmail.comTo: sap-wug at mit.eduSubject: RE: ECC 6.0
> SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not being updated properlyDate: Thu, 20 Mar
> 2008 17:11:38 +0000
>
>
> Official response from SAP on this one seems to be:
> Yes, there may well be a problem updating this field, but frankly we don't
> care because you shouldn't be looking in that table anyway, and you are
> very naughty for not using our WAPIs!Nice one SAP. Okay, so I made that
> last part up, but OSS Message 1153860 reads a bit like that :) I have no
> idea if this is going to cause any of you any grief, but those of you
> intending to continue using the 'old' container tables might want to keep
> an eye out for general instantiation problems with Business Objects that
> can't seem to be explained.Regards, Mike GT
>
>
> From: madgambler at hotmail.comTo: sap-wug at mit.eduSubject: RE: ECC 6.0
> SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not being updated properlyDate: Tue, 11 Mar
> 2008 14:08:33 +0000
>
> We too are on patch level 13. Our development system clearly shows LOGSYS
> values appearing regular as clockwork before the upgrade and now only
> occasionally after the upgrade, which is most odd.It kind of implies a
> deep-down MOVE statement or something not working properly to my mind.
> Probably a unicode bug or something...will see what SAP have to say. MGT
>
>
> From: araskin at 3i-consulting.comTo: sap-wug at mit.eduDate: Tue, 11 Mar 2008
> 07:49:19 -0400Subject: RE: ECC 6.0 SWW_CONTOB Logical System name not
> being updated properly
>
>
>
>
> Hi Mikey,
>
> I just took a look at our sandbox and I see a logical system in most of
> our entries. We are on ECC 6.0 patch level 13.
>
> Out of approximately 200K entries in this table, I did find approximately
> 9K entries without LogSys including _WORKITEM entries.
> I am honestly not sure why some do and some don't. Maybe others have an
> idea?
>
> Oh and you are so old school for using that table (though I do understand
> why)  :-)
>
> Alon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike
> Gambier [madgambler at hotmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:30 AMTo:
> SAP Workflow Users' GroupSubject: ECC 6.0 SWW_CONTOB Logical System name
> not being updated properly
>
> Hi, Has anyone else noticed or seen evidence of the 'old' Workflow
> Container table (SWW_CONTOB) not being updated properly where the Logical
> System name field (LOGSYS) is concerned? I'm a little bit worried that
> this field is only sometimes being updated when entries are being added.
> Our 'new' Workflow instances do not appear to be updating this field when
> creating new entries, although any triggering event container instances do
> have their proper logical system name values.So, for example, '_WORKITEM'
> entries are being created with a blank value for LOGSYS (which just isn't
> right) whereas any importing container elements definitely do have a
> kosher value. This is causing us some grief with FMs like
> CHECK_OBJECT_IN_WF because the standard SAP code is looking for a
> like-for-like match with whatever value you pass through in OBJECT-LOGSYS.
> I'm going to trawl through OSS but I thought I'd ask around to see if this
> is a 'known' feature. I'd like to ask anybody else who is currently
> working on an upgrade project to check out their SWW_CONTOB entries too
> (that is if they still intend to use the old tables) and let me know if
> they have this problem at all, or whether it's just our system misbehaving
> :) Regards, Mike GT
>
> Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
>
> She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
>
> She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get Hotmail on your mobile. Text MSN to 63463 now!
> http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx_______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>