[LIKELY JUNK]RE: LPOR restriction v tightly-coupled SAP systems

[Dart, Jocelyn]

Agreed.  And just remember folks the answer to cross system workflows in any case is  NW BPM....one eye on the future...
Rgds, Jocelyn.

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Pokraka
Sent: Friday, 8 January 2010 12:44 AM
To: 'SAP Workflow Users' Group'
Subject: [LIKELY JUNK]RE: LPOR restriction v tightly-coupled SAP systems

Hi Mike,

I don't see this as a major hurdle. It is possible to have the same business key for different objects in different systems. Hence they 'localised' object references. This makes even more sense when you consider the object type that also forms part of a LPOR: class ZCL_HR_POSITION may differ between systems.

The only thing that would be unique is a GUID, so a strategy may be to localise your remote objects by means of a GUID and a mapping table. Your local objects are created using a GUID and mapped to the remote business key. Using persistency service, this is actually far easier to implement than it sounds, and you could continue to work with your document number or whatever in WF and nobody would be any wiser to the fact that the object resides elsewhere. It is theoretically possible to even do without GUIDs or mapping tables, but I'd personally avoid that for stability reasons.

Cheers,
Mike


From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Gambier
Sent: 07 January 2010 09:42
To: sap-wug at mit.edu
Subject: LPOR restriction v tightly-coupled SAP systems

Hello WUGgers,

When we upgraded to ECC 6 early last year I bemoaned the apparent demise of the Logical System field since the Workflow Gods had deemed it to be obsolete. Instead they commanded a system-wide switch to the Local Persistence way of doing things (LPOR).

Despite my concern at the time, back then we didn't really have much of need to use LOGSYS because:

  a) we don't use multe-clients (we still don't)

and

  b) we only really had 1 SAP box to worry about.

So I was only puzzled on a theoretical level.

That picture has changed though because our landscape has evolved. We now have a PI box and an ERP box playing with each other. Very soon the latter will be tightly coupled to a new CRM box too. And all three will have Workflow running on them in various forms for various reasons.

And there's the rub...if I wanted to model a Workflow in CRM that could natively make use of object instances that actually pointing to the ERP system this doesn't appear to be something that conforms to the new WF rules. I can already imagine a whole host of Business Processes that might want to straddle the middle-ground and work with instances on boths sides...

Of course the LOGSYS field is still there (for now) and I suppose I could make use of it anyway and build msyelf nice RFC-based Object wrappers and shoe-horn remote instances into our Workflows. But, I can't help but think that SAP have really missed a trick here, particularly with clients who have been suckered/persuaded* into buying a CRM-ERP platform (*delete where applicable).

Is anyone else here flummoxed by this decision or am I the only one howling at this particular moon?

Mike GT
________________________________
Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. Find out how.<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394593/direct/01/%20>


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4750 (20100107) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20100108/33316123/attachment.htm