SCP Workflow question

[Mark Pyc]

Agree with Kjetil and agree it's a lot like a FIPP to BKPF or maybe more so
like BUS2105 to BUS2012. Thing is LFA1 doesn't have such an obvious
'requested' phase. I've done similar things before but I end up creating a
request application which assigns a GUID to the request, and that's the
object that the WF operates on. Now you _could_ use the WF instance id as
the request number and capture all the data into containers rather than
custom tables but, in non-cloud at least, that would seem to me to be a
lazy hack that would cost you in the long run - think about reporting and
monitoring.

The cloud... hmmm don't get me started on the cloud, or least SAPs
endeavours in that space... it might seem easier to use the WF as the
request DB but again I still think it's lazy. I started typing thinking I
might have a different attitude given the cloud but I don't

Create a "Vendor Request" application (if you don't want to use MDM
requests and WF - not sure of cloud availability) and then build WF with a
known instance as you always would.

My 2p / 2c / 2 lowest units of your desired currency.

Have fun,
Mark

On 9 May 2018 at 06:03, Kjetil Kilhavn <list.sap-wug at vettug.no> wrote:

> What is an object? If the workflow is "Create Vendor Account" and takes a
> bunch of input parameters for the new vendor, then why not let it start
> before there is an LFA1 record in the database? You have an object, it just
> isn't complete yet, it is a draft for a vendor record. Sort of like FIPP
> objects.
>
> But the way you describe it it may also be a workflow that doesn't have a
> clue what is about to happen, so any type of object can be created etc. I
> suppose it could still be a valid use case, but it's a bit harder to
> imagine. How would one for instance identify agents for the first step if
> you don't even know what is going to be created.
>
> Den 08. mai 2018 19:08, skreiv Andy Curtis:
>
> WUG'ers :) (longtime no see)
>
> I am graduating to SCP Workflow and have a question, I wonder if anyone
> can help me out.
>
> I have always built Classic Workflows triggered after an object has been
> created in a database, or SAP always saves the object and then sends the Wf
> triggering event.  I would say thats best practice and it also fits with my
> other narrative about keeping process and application logic separate.
>
> In SCP it is possible to trigger a SCP Workflow without an Object, but is
> that a good idea?  The thought it to trigger SCP Wf and have a step that
> calls a task to create the object, so the Wf is basically generic to start
> with, then becomes instantiated after the first step.  Would anyone else
> think this is a good idea?  I don't, I think a Wf should have an object
> before being started but I am having a hard time arguing the case, so
> really looking for other informed opinion.
>
> Anyone got one?
>
>
> Andy Curtis
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing listSAP-WUG at mit.eduhttp://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug
>
>
> --
> Kjetil Kilhavn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180508/9e9168c3/attachment-0001.html