​Re: ​Re: ​SCP Workflow question

[Andy Curtis]

Kjetil

Yes, I am looking at Cloud Wf.  I am very bullish about SCP, I believe the
SAP story and think the whole IT industry is moving to Cloud Services, so I
am keen to get to work with SCP Wf.  It could be that SCP Wf follows a
similar path to Portal Wf.  That is 'I don;t know of many implementations
using it', but I do think the driving factors are different now and think
SCP Wf will be used.  If it is, SAP will need to build more admin around
it.  For instance, if a SCP Task was delivered to a User that does not
exist, I would not know how to move the workitem to a new User.  I also
would not know how to set up a substitute (as an admin).

Maybe Jocelyn or someone will put me right?

Andy


---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kjetil Kilhavn <list.sap-wug at vettug.no>
> To: sap-wug at mit.edu
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:59:09 +0200
> Subject:
> ​​
> Re: ​Re: ​SCP Workflow question
>
> Ahhh, finally dawned on me that SCP is not just any old acronym - you are
> working on a SAP Cloud Platform workflow solution.
> Sad to say I don't really know anything about that yet - so my input may
> be completely useless. (Or should I be happy to say I don't know anything
> about SCP Workflow yet? Hmmm...)
>
> Den 09. mai 2018 12:13, skreiv Andy Curtis:
>
> Maybe I am doing a poor job of explaining because we do have a team of
> experienced mobile people.
>
> We originally said, 'when user presses 'submit' there should be 2 things
> happen, the 'request' should be saved and Wf should be triggered.  They
> read this as 2 client side actions (1 to send screen data to the server,
> the second to trigger Wf) and were concerned what would happen if the first
> action succeeded and the second failed.  The answer to that is to have 1
> server side service to receive the screen data, create a database record
> and trigger Wf).  But the pushback came that if there was 1 client side
> action to trigger Wf (server side) passing the screen data to the Context,
> then Wf could create the database record as the first step.
>
> Thats where my karma is suffering.  I believe it is 'right/correct' to
> have a server side service receive the screen data, create a 'request' on a
> database and then trigger Wf.  Replacing the server side service to receive
> the screendata and trigger Wf, I think is fundamentally wrong because I
> have never created a Wf that did not have an business object/Class instance
> when it started.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Andy
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20180510/0cdbbace/attachment.html