Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC 6.0

[Mike Gambier]

Hi,We did not rebuild our WFs as most of the 'old' tables that we cared about were kept in ECC 6, and we have survived with only a few problems that were fixable. So it can be done if you choose to do so, we're the proof of that :)You need to consider your use of multi-line container tables (new &ParForEach& syntax), fixed date constants used in bindings (there's a bug with unicode parsing that can be fixed in the builder) and also tweak the odd dummy node here and there. Oh, and apply quite a few OSS Notes n the way! Don't worry, the Workflow Gods have put together a very handy OSS Note that explains a lot of these issues. I don't recall the number off-hand but it's easy to find.But you also need to consider the 'new' stuff coming along with ECC 6 that might make your old stuff redundant.Bear in mind the new container table options coming in and the new locking profile options too.Mike GT
> From: wug at workflowconnections.com
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Subject: RE: Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC 6.0
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:07:48 +0000
> 
> I agree, definitely rebuild your workflows.
> For most other development objects you can use SAPLink
> http://code.google.com/p/saplink/ to copy them across. It won't do BOR
> objects though. 
> 
> Another problem with transports is that the new system won't be the original
> source system for those objects, so any later changes will be modifications.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Paul.Bakker at osr.treasury.qld.gov.au
> > Sent: 11 March 2009 04:55
> > To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
> > Subject: Re: Migration from SAP 4.7 to ECC 6.0
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > We are going through exactly the same exercise at the moment. We chose
> > to
> > simply reimplement the workflows.
> > 
> > It was not a tough decision because:
> > (1) we don't have that many workflows (about a dozen)
> > (2) they are not that complex
> > (3) the underlying objects / DDIC elements had to be re-implemented
> > anyway,
> > in our brand new customer namespace.
> > 
> > I think that using transports would be a risky enterprise, as you would
> > be
> > hardpressed to
> > ensure that _all_ dependent objects and config are transported at the
> > same
> > time.
> > There are also ECC 6.0 compatibility issues to consider when
> > transporting.
> > 
> > Hope this helps.
> > 
> > cheers
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >              Ibrahim Khan
> >              <ikhansap at gmail.c
> >              om>
> > To
> >              Sent by:                  "SAP Workflow Users' Group"
> >              sap-wug-bounces at m         <SAP-WUG at mit.edu>
> >              it.edu
> > cc
> > 
> > 
> > Subject
> >              11/03/2009 02:27          Re: Migration from SAP 4.7 to
> > ECC
> >              PM                        6.0
> > 
> > 
> >              Please respond to
> >                "SAP Workflow
> >                Users' Group"
> >              <sap-wug at mit.edu>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Worfklow experts,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug

_________________________________________________________________
 25GB of FREE Online Storage – Find out more
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665320/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20090314/53af5feb/attachment.htm