SWCONT's limitations with long values...

[Mike Gambier]

Apologies for the spam :P
 
So, OK it decomposes the structures element by element (but only up to 255 chars for each). Hence a container becomes quite full of 'sub' elements belonging to the parent element.
 
I think I knew this...been a while since I've neeeded to care about it XD
 
But...I still don't think this is ideal where the parameter will be extended a lot...
 
I know that I can pass a multi-line table based on SWCONT into an SWCONT-based container (so setting a container into a container as a table), so I'm leaning towards suggesting an unstructured 'table of elements + values' instead of a complex structure...
Pity BoR can't cope with ABAP_PARMBIND though...
 
MGT



From: madgambler at hotmail.comTo: sap-wug at mit.eduSubject: RE: SWCONT's limitations with long values...Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:40:37 +0000

Hi again, I forgot to mention that the example they provide where an importing parameter structure is already longer than 255 is BoR Object Method ISUCONTRCT.ChangeFromData where parameter ContractData is based on BAPIISUCONTRACT which is 386 chars long in our system. So, it must be able to cope somehow...presumably if I could be bothered to debug it I'd find out how ;) MGT



From: madgambler at hotmail.comTo: sap-wug at mit.eduSubject: SWCONT's limitations with long values...Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:30:31 +0000



Hi,
 
I'm trying to convince SAP that using a really long structure-based single line importing parameter for a BApI, that might grow and grow, isn't a smart idea because SWCONT is limited to 255 chars. My fear is that we'll hit some sort of limit somewhere which will cause problems, whether that will be in BoR elsewhere like a BAdI.
 
They've come back and said that swc* macros can cope with longer strings at runtime and no truncation will result. Personally I'm not convinced and can only assume that the SAP code flicks into set/get table mode to cope somehwere, but I can't seem to find where..does anyone here know whether it can do this and how?
 
Regardless of their suggested approach, I want to try and impress upon them that a nested unstructured approach is more suitable to our needs and something more akin to SAP's Master Data Generator table EPRODA (which assigns a type definition to an element) has more of a future in our system. 
 
But they're being a bit stubborn about this and any ammuntion from the WUG about pitfalls when using long parameter definitions like this would be useful.
 
Thanks in advance,
 
Mike GT

BigSnapSearch.com - 24 prizes a day, every day. Search now

Win £1000 John Lewis shopping sprees with BigSnapSearch.com Search now
_________________________________________________________________
Win £1000 John Lewis shopping sprees with BigSnapSearch.com
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20081121/9706c3ae/attachment.htm