ABAP Objects - Percent of WF'ers using ABAP OO?

Mon Feb 21 08:52:34 EST 2011

Hi Mike, Mike and all,

I bit the bullet and started a re-write using as much OO and new features of WF (ECC6, like WF Program Exists, local events, etc.) as practical.

First, I had to relearn OO. I have a Java background, but was just getting to the point of being productive before we switched to SAP. And that was 10 years ago, so a refresher with ABAP OO and what's available out of the SAP box was required.

Learned enough ABAP OO to fumble around, then how to muck around and make something work with WF with some tutorials, "next" is to start the design of my app.

That brings me to some critical decision points. (Remember, this is just me. No team, business folks doing blueprinting, etc.)
I looked at many SWT* packages. They are mostly too simple to even think about using for anything.
So how much BOR to push aside and what needs to be written from scratch. Most of the BORs are really not complicate (when you have a couple years under your belt) so re-writing BUS2032 is not 'really hard'. What I still do not know is, does SAP have equivalents ABAP OO objects to BORs. ? Like, is there already a ABAP OO of BUS2032? Or, is there a class higher up called Orders that is a super class of Sales Order, etc. Or do we have to build from scratch? (I am waiting for the book, so if all answers are there, just tell me)

For just me at this point, using the Agile approach sounds like best approach. Design, write, test... refactor, write, test, refactor... etc. After reading and some more reading, I am already thinking my classes can be split out to more wide casting higher in the class hierarchy.

You know, when I look at the WF SWT* packages, it looks like the examples that were in BOR. An afterthought!
Rick

I don't want to be in the very front crossing this river and get eaten by the crocodile. And, I don't want to be all the way in the rear, where the lions clean up the old and weak. I want to be somewhere in the middle of the herd with the numbers. (I won't have to run fast, just faster than <him> to avoid getting eaten alive.)

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Gambier
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 5:56 AM
To: sap-wug at mit.edu
Subject: RE: ABAP Objects - Percent of WF'ers using ABAP OO?

Hi all,

Mind if I chip in? Mike and I have been having a good old discussion about this since we currently sit in front of each other (and since our Production system just died I have some free time...).

As most of us here are aware, ABAP OO is hard to avoid these days especially if you're working on certain technologies, e.g Web UI.

But I think that the overall number of BOR/Workflow savvy people who are chossing to cross-train/upskill and learn ABAP OO stuff with a view to building Workflow stuff using it is likely to be very low indeed.

Ceratinly here for our client, the number is 0%. Zip, nada, rien.

One of the biggest drawbacks to building SAP Business Workflow based on ABAP OO concepts is that it is so damned hard to do so when there exists the enromous temptation to fall back on tried and trusted BOR techniques that are so much easier and cheaper to build and are known to work.

Simply put, the benefits of making the switch don't stack up when you are forced to build to the lowest common denominator, the humble ABAP coder.

If SAP truly wanted to push Workflow developers away from BOR and towards ABAP OO they would have defined a BOR '2' framework to show the way, but they didn't and don't show any signs of doing so for that matter.

Instead, they shifted their focus to the Java stack and started selling SAP CE instead, which uses a 'proper' OO language rather than ABAP OO. Of course now that Oracle has bought Sun (and is merrily killing it), you never know, SAP may decide to stop investing in this area entirely and we might see another shift in direction...

And before anyone says it, no, I don't believe that ccBPM really counts as an alternative - the idea of a 'dark' Workflow process running on the ABAP stack of a PI box is just plain daft and in practice it's routinely overlooked for serious volumes.

As a result of this apparent modelling vacuum the following appears to have happened as far as I can see:

1. Any ABAP OO Workflow stuff now ends up being boiled down to an entry point for some sort of ABAP OO processing stuff rather than as part of a full-blown end-to-end Business Process modelled using ABAP OO concepts.

2. Few people want to learn BOR stuff because it now appears to have a short shelf-life and looks decidedly old school.

3. Only people like us are concerned.

Regards,

Mike GT

> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:34:07 +0000
> Subject: Re: ABAP Objects - Percent of WF'ers using ABAP OO?
> From: wug at workflowconnections.com
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> I know what you mean! Some theories I can offer based on my experiences:
>
> - Learning curve: Although OO requires far less specialist WF knowledge
> than BOR, there are still quite a few rules to work by.
>
> - Skillset: Many people learnt ABAP as a secondary skill to build better
> workflows. They have a handle on BOR and - no disrespect intended - the
> concept of relearning OO terrifies them. In some ways rightly so, BOR is a
> bit more forgiving for people just muddling through. OO on the other hand
> benefits from better programming skills, with the upshot of better quality
> solutions.
>
> - Installed base: Much SAP-delivered and custom-built functionality is
> already contained in BOR. People see it as a huge task to switch to OO,
> but this is really just a chicken and egg scenario because it's easy to
> port BOR to OO *if* you have good knowledge of WF-OO. (Hint: The Book v2.0
> will help with this!)
>
> For anyone sitting on the fence, I say: just do it! There's no need to
> make it a major undertaking, just tackle one thing at a time. As a rough
> guideline, anything new gets developed in OO and anything requiring
> changes is ported where practical.
>
> Have fun,
> Mike
>
> On Fri, February 18, 2011 8:48 pm, Sample, Rick wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I scanned here and SDN WF blogs and I really don't see a whole lot of OO
> > activity for WF. I am wondering if it is the learning curve, staffing,
> > budget, lack of interest, or other. Since WF developers are about what ...
> > 1 of 50 ABAP'ers, I would assume the ABAP OO to be orders of magnitude
> > larger in number of posts. Just the opposite.
> >
> > Any numbers on what percent is using:
> > sticking with 4.6c BOR,
> > phasing in ABAP OO with WF for new projects and re-writes, (This is our
> > plan so far. Not implementing full BPM tools etc.)
> > other BPM tools,
> > something else?
> >
> > Any of this data available from SAP with regards to who and how many are
> > moving to <what?> Recent blogs on this subject? etc. etc.
> >
> > As always, you may contact me directly.
> >
> > Rick Sample | SAP Workflow Analyst/Developer
> > Rick.Sample at Graybar.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SAP-WUG mailing list
> > SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20110221/434dfd5b/attachment.htm