WDA & ABAP Objects - Percent of WF'ers using them?

[Ramki Maley]

Mikko, thanks for a great reply. I fully agree with you. I too have been 
using ABAP-OO to create new objects, new methods for existing BOR etc.

I am in a situation where the users want WebDynpro and don't want 
anything to do with SAPGUI. The client does not have EP. We have built a 
simple WDA application and used WF_EXTSRV to generate a task for it. 
This works fine when executed from the SBWP. The issue is when an email 
with Execute Workitem link is sent to Outlook using Extended 
Notifictions. Since the link executes Txn. SWNWIEX, the 'Close Window' 
screen is opened first in SAPGUI/browser and then the WDA is launched.

Is there any way to launch the WebDynpro from the email other than 
actually putting the URL in the workitem description?

Thanks,
Ramki.



On 2/25/11 2:24 AM, Mikko Mäki-Rahkola wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> interesting to hear other workflowers' experiences on ABAP OO and WDA
> usage! I hope you (especially Sue, Mike and Ramki) however don't mind
> me as a late joiner combining the two topics of ABAP OO for WF and WDA
> for WF when sharing my experiences, since I've been accustomed to
> using both of them simultaneously and I strongly believe that 1 + 1 =
> 3 in this case :)
>
> ABAP OO for WF experiences:
> We've now been using ABAP OO for WF in ~10-15 projects since 2007 and
> I can pretty much agree on the use cases and comments already stated.
> Our rule of thumb is similar to others', we are using ABAP OO for WF
> in cases where new functionality is required. Such cases have included
> e.g. request objects in need of object specific functionality (like
> material requests, where the usage of ISR notification objects is not
> sufficient), but also completely new objects which SAP doesn't support
> at all in BOR (e.g. SAP HCM Enterprise Compensation Management). Cases
> where not to go with ABAP OO and resort to existing BOR objects have
> included e.g. event handling, simple workflows (like IDoc handling)
> where the standard objects are sufficient and customer driven cases
> where the usage of BOR objects have been a must.
>
> In general, we are using BOR objects nowadays only where it's
> necessary like event handling or where the ABAP OO
> replacing/complementing functionality would require too big an effort
> when compared to a standard BOR object. The main benefits we have
> perceived of going ABAP OO instead of BOR come from a developer
> perspective. People using ABAP OO in other development (see my
> comments below) are quickly accustomed to using the WF class
> interface, the class editor is familiar to them and there is no need
> for a separate editor, there are less restrictions (anyone had a
> requirement for more than one delegation/subclass?) and in general
> there's a single development environment which can be utilised for
> other development as well.
>
> WDA for WF experiences:
> WDA has been around in our projects since 2007-2008 after customers
> started upgrading their systems to SAP ERP 6.0 (gladly no more WDJ
> since then!) and most of the WDA solutions we've done have been
> integrated to WF in one way or the other. Some have just started off a
> workflow either through a custom or a standard event, some have been
> been developed for work item processing (= approval views) and some
> have been done for work item reporting. Since both WDA and WF work on
> the ABAP runtime, they work beautifully together. Firing events with
> ABAP OO for WF, processing work items and reporting on them are as
> straightforward with WDA as with plain ABAP.
>
> Currently our nr 1 choice for a new customer specific web user
> interface sitting on top of any SAP Business Suite (ok CRM and SRM may
> be different) is WDA as per SAP's Best Built Application guidelines.
> As Mike P stated before, it has lots of benefits when compared to the
> other alternatives (WDJ, BSP, VC) available. So our outlook on it is
> very positive, it works well together with WF implementations and also
> has UI-wise very powerful features like POWL and FPM delivered with
> the framework.
>
> WDA + ABAP OO for WF experiences:
> Yes, the 1 + 1 = 3 section :)
>
> Having gone through multiple projects using the two, the main benefits
> arising from the usage of ABAP OO together with Workflow and WDA are
> reuse and encapsulation in my experience. What this basically means is
> that when building a web enabled workflow solution having WDA as the
> UI, we are first structuring the solution into architecturally
> different layers. Most common layers in a typical scenario include the
> UI layer (incl WDA), process integration layer (WF) and the business
> logic layer (ABAP OO). Each of the scenario specific layers then have
> several components like multiple WDA components, multiple workflow
> definitions and multiple classes.
>
> As an example, let's take a typical parked invoice approval scenario
> where you need to have a web UI for casual invoice approvers, a
> workflow to coordinate the process and a class to take care of invoice
> actions and information provisioning. For the invoice object realized
> as an ABAP OO class, the typical implementation should then include
> not only WF interface methods, but also getters and setters (called as
> functional methods from WF, and by WDA as instance methods), invoice
> action methods (status changes triggered by WF and/or WDA) and static
> methods used for invoice work item reporting etc. Having implemented
> everything in one class, you can use e.g. the same object and its
> methods efficiently and effectively by both the WDA and by the WF
> definitions.
>
> My experience in summary currently is that I would go no other way
> than using ABAP OO in WF related projects. Switching back to BOR not
> only would make my life miserable because of all the macros, outdated
> editors and other features of BOR, but more importantly because its
> integration to WDA would be so much more difficult when compared to
> ABAP classes. There is of course the learning curve you need to
> conquer as discussed in previous posts, but I definitely think it's
> worth the leap.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mikko
>
> Mikko Mäki-Rahkola
> Managing Director
> Nobultec Ltd
> Tekniikantie 12
> 02150 Espoo
> Finland
> +358 50 558 7834
> mikko.maki-rahkola at nobultec.com
> www.nobultec.com  - Work redistributed
> fi.linkedin.com/in/mikkomakirahkola - Follow me on LinkedIn
> twitter.com/mikkomr - Follow me on Twitter
> twitter.com/nobultec - Follow Nobultec on Twitter
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug