Transaction for screen programming

[Former Member]

Hi All,

I'm trying to get the best approach to create a transaction code for a screen.

There seem to be multiple options, but I would like to know the standard way of doing it.

Right now, I have created the initial screen as part of a function group and using CALL SCREEN in its function module which is in turn called through a report program.

The custom screen is something like Purchase requisition creation screen. So more than one subscreens are involved.

Some common data retreival and processing is required before the data can be displayed on the screen, so I cannot call the initial screen directly.

I read somewhere that dialog module transactions are obsolete now. Is that right?

Thanks!

Arthi

[Former Member]

> I read somewhere that dialog module transactions are obsolete now. Is that right?

Interesting - where did you read that?

Rob

[Former Member]

This was in SAP Help. The context was Calling Screens as a Dialog Module:

"Dialog modules are obsolete, and should no longer be used. Instead, you can encapsulate screen sequences in function groups and call them from an appropriately-programmed function module."

Screens and Screen Sequences

http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70/helpdata/en/10/e7dbde82ba11d295a40000e8353423/frameset.htm

[Former Member]

Hi,

CALL DIALOG is obsolete now, but it is not obsolete to create module pools for transactions.

Regards,

Klaus

[Former Member]

Yes Klaus , thanks for pointing.

I did think they were different contexts, but building a transaction kind of decides the screen design and I wanted to check if dialog module was the best approach when building a screen like ME51N.

[Former Member]

Well, to answer your first question, it would probably be easier and more direct to call your screen directly through a module pool rather than a report program that calls a FM. Either approach should be OK.

I suspect that CALL DIALOG was obsoleted because it does not have its own LUW.

Rob

[Former Member]

OK, Thank you.

I'm going stick with my current design if this is fine.

The standard transaction also seems to follow the same pattern.