Just when you thought it was safe ...

[former_member181923]

Yes, I'm back. (Sorry Craig !)

I wonder if any of the Krazy Old Krew is still here that will remember me.

Anyway, just want to take a moment to mention that I've finally had enough free time to spend some reading the2nd Edition of Practical Workflow for SAP (2009) and I can't put it down. It's way more interesting than Avatar ...

Second, congratulatons to SAP for committing the resources to help Workflow into the future and congratulations to Joceyln, Erik, Ginger, Oliver, Somya, Silvana, Susan, Thomas, Paul, Mike, Alan, Shalini, Jorn, and Ted on a phenomenal, truly truly impressive job on the 2nd Edition !!!!!

Third, I'm back in a position where I may have interesting work-related issues to blog about again, so look for some upcoming blogs under Ranting (you know - the "no points awarded category - so no one can complain about point-harvesting) ...

Best to all, whether you remember me or not.

djh

Edited by: David Halitsky on Mar 11, 2010 8:34 PM

[Former Member]

>

>
> Anyway, just want to take a moment to mention that I've finally had enough free time to spend some reading the 2nd Edition of Practical Workflow for SAP (2009) and I can't put it down.  It's way more interesting than Avatar ...
> 
> Second, congratulatons to SAP for committing the resources to help Workflow into the future and congratulations to Joceyln, Erik, Ginger, Oliver, Somya, Silvana, Susan, Thomas, Paul, Mike, Alan, Shalini, Jorn, and Ted on a phenomenal, truly truly impressive job on the 2nd Edition !!!!!
> 
> 

I totally agree with you, it is indeed a fab book. Great effort from everyone involved....

Regards

Ravi

[marilyn_pratt]

I think some would feel I meet all 3 of those descriptors. So I'll respond too. What? You think when you step out everyone else does too? There are plenty of survivors on this island.

[former_member181923]

Ah! The fair Marilyn, Lily-Maid of Newtown Square!

(Those who don't have a clue what I just said can find out by doing an advanced search exact words Google on "Elaine the Lily-Maid of Astolat".)

Anyway, Marilyn, you done me wrong when you said I "stepped out".

I didn't "step out". I've just been working for a client where I thought it best to keep a lower profile because maybe they might not appreciate my more rambunctious hi-jinks here at SDN.

But you have to know "I Left My Heart in Palo Alto", and that now that I am free to be rambunctious again, it's time to PARTY!!!!!!

Best regards

djh

[Former Member]

OMG! Run away. Run away..

Did SAP WAPI's solve your slightly-shared memory doubts? I will keep an eye out for the blogs.

Cheers,

Julius

[former_member181923]

Hi JB - believe it or not, a little while ago I was in a mixed ECC5/6 environment and I discovered to my delight that a lot of the "sligtly-shared" memory problems that arose wth old-style BAdI's and user exts actually go away with new stle BAdI's.

Plus, of course, the new enhancement framework makes it almost all go away because you've got addressability to whatever is adressable by what you're plugging into/ (At least I think this is the case from what I've read - someone please correct me if i'm wrong about this ... I haven't been in a situation where I can find out for myself ...)

Anywar, JB, I'm glad that one of the Krazy Old Krew is still here !

Best

djh

[Former Member]

In the security area I have only had exposure to 1 BADI and the "B" in BADI was important. The bugger was that the "B" pointed to a whole product before I could use it in my one little obscure ancient FM.

So I had to start a company wide project to get my FM to work at its's own intended "B" level.

SAML 2.0 provider tockens are only issued (and shipped) with the SAP IdM component (Java stack).

At first it was a big disappointment to me, but as Gareth Ellem used to say...

I am still undecided about the enhancement framework because of use of the adoptation of the switch framework. I think it can be measured in terms of how many business functions customers actually register for SAP to collect the details of in client 666.

Sometimes customers have requirements where one should be realistic about the fact that it is their problem or hobby horses. To paralyze a whole system with modifications because some manager stops at the gas station on a Sunday evening is no reason to incur knock-on costs in millions down the line...

I suspect faintly that the enhancement framework might encourage this type of selective-memory management more than what user-exists did in their later days, by making it more acceptable.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Julius

[former_member181923]

Hi Julius -

I'm coming from a different place on the enhancement framework, JB.

Remember a few years baclk (2005?) when SAP announced it was gong to support multiple VM Java machnes so one idiot couldn't bring everybody's house down?

Well of course, this was simply re-inventing what IIBM mainframers would have called a MUSAS in the old days - a multi-user single address space, where each user's enitire context was swapped out by the OS when it wasn't execuuting.

In the same way, I thinlk thje enhancement point approach is returning to an older but tried and true enhancement model that is fundamentally correct.

But I could well be wrong aboiut that.

Best

djh

[former_member184657]

Woo! Look who's risen from the dead!

Im guessing I can still catch you with your distinctive cap on

pk

[former_member181923]

Hi pk -

Nice to hear from you.

Also, you've given me a great idea.

I think I'm going to ask David Branan to change my SDN user id to "Lazarus".

Best regards

djh

[stephenjohannes]

David,

It's nice to see you back. I have been wondering where/what you have been up to. The coffee corner needs you back to bring balance to the type of discussions happening here. Looking forward to your next new "rant".

Take care,

Stephen

[former_member181923]

Hey Stephen -

Great to see you.

Well, I actually do have a rant topic in mind but I gotta wait for a little while longer before I let the horses run or the dogs out or whatever the expression is.

How are you doing?

djh

[stephenjohannes]

David,

Been busy but other good. I have another child now(son born in January of this year), became a SAP Mentor last year and continue to moderate CRM related topics here and work on the CRM wiki Overall life is pretty good even though my sleep right now is a lot less than a year ago.

Okay we will wait for it. In the meantime have you read any of Vijay's Vijayasankar blogs:

/people/vijay.vijayasankar/blog

I think you can see a lot more folks have found the "rant/deep questions" discussion to be actually welcome here. It just took someone initially to help show the need / change the direction. I think honestly a lot of the blogs here are more in your style rather than the technical how-to guides they were originially.

Thank you,

Stephen

[former_member181923]

Thanks for the link to V's bloglist, Stephen.

Although I applaud both his effort and perspective as valuable, I do think he may be ignoring two very simple economic drivers in his discussion of SI's:

functional specs are relatively high-margin, low-risk work products

(low-risk because intrinsically untestable prior to actual development, high-margin because SI's bill out SME's high)

code is a low-margin, high-risk work product

(high-risk because intrinsically testable, low-margin because SI's bill out developers low relative to SME rates)

Are these key drivers in the SI business model?

And if so, is it any wonder that a project fails after being front-loaded with too many SME's who can never contractually be held accountable by the customer for inadequacies in their specs, assuming they're even still on the project when the inadequacies are discovered during development? Is it any wonder that there often doesn't seem to be enough time and money left to get develoment done properly and that developers must often participate directly with customer personnel in ex post facto "design by defect" cycles?

Suppose each SI were required to enter each of its SME's in a central registry along with the name of each of the functional specs the SME had completed for any previous customer.

Suppose further that for each of an SME's functional specs in this registry, the previous customer who paid for the spec could enter the number of defects that arose during develooment due to inadequacies in the functional spec.

Would the resulting information in the registry differ in principle from the kind of information which (I believe) is currently available to prospective patients regarding OR mortality rates of possible prospective surgeons?

(PS - that was not the upcoming 'rant' topic I have in mind ... it's way too obvious for anyone who's been around the block once or twice.)

Best

djh