cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Difference/Link xApps vs CAF vs Visual Composer

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hello Everyone,

I did a little search within SDN but did not find some article or discussion that brings xApps, CAF Guided Procedures and Visual Composer together.

I am not too deep into all of these concepts and technologies yet, but would like to know

- What are the differences?

- When to use what?

- Are they interrelated? E.g. is the output of VisualComposer a CAF Guided Procedure?

- How to integrate end user work processes that are implemented using Visual Composer with a Guided Procedure?

- Is CAF any different from an xApp?

- How does BPM fit into the picture?

- ... ?

These are many questions and I'm sure some of you people out there must have come across them. So please point me to the answers, documents, threads, ...

Meanwhile I'll read on and try to find some answers for myself.

Thanks

Markus

(Message was edited by: Markus Wissmann

Added BPM to the topics)

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

1) CAF & GP are tools to build and run xApps. Although xApps themselves do not necessarily have to be built with those tools.

2) If you need persistency, add/programm business logic, use UI patterns and freestyle, use CAF.

If you have services and data sources available and do not need new business logic and persistency, use VC.

If you have pieces of an application like transactions or RFCs and want to put them into a process, use GP. Of course you can build such an application with CAF, and use that in GP. Or you build a Application Service, enabled as webservice with CAF and use that in Visual Composer

3) No, the output of a VC is not a Guided Procedure.

4) currently, as far as I know, you can only use them as link-object(whatever the correct name is). If you want to pass data between such an application (e.g. to pass the status of the transaction and parameters), you better work with CAF, as you need some interfaces implemented for GP, which VC doesn't have today.

5) as mentioned: CAF is the tool, xApp the application build and run with it

6) BPM: I do not have a clear picture of that, so before I say something wrong, I say nothing.

Many of those answers are in the CAF book (SAP xApps and CAF- http://www.sap-press.de/katalog/buecher/titel/gp/titelID-750)

Mario

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Mario,

Thanks for your answers. They are quite useful and I'll reward you some points for these.

I guess you would recommend buying this book your mentioning... ;o)

I do not understand why SAP is coming up with two different approaches (VC and CAF/Guided Procedures). It means that ones you have decided for VC you can not easily convert to Guided Procedures, right? CAF parts seem to be more readily accessible, but still will need integration effort.

I really had hoped these nice drawings of VC could be used to create our business processes, but now it looks like I will have to stay on the "safe side" and use CAF and guided procedures and do my flow drawings in a separate tool.

Are there plans to bring both approaches together?

Regards

Markus

Former Member
0 Kudos

The reason is simple: legacy. Those tools were originally built with different aims. Only later it turned out that both are ver well qualified for doing more than their original task.

VC currently is aiming at the Business Expert, while CAF/GP more on the developer/programmer.

Eventually, both will come together (this is identified as a requirement), either by representing just different flavors for different users on the same models, or by integrating them into a toolset.

Mario

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Mario,

I hope I am right, when I think you are german

So the following diploma thesis could be helpful

http://www.fh-joanneum.at/ima/source/DarbeitenDetail.asp?lan=DE&daid=1816&jahr=2001

It is about the GP an many parts are based on the book mentioned (and written) by Mario.

But the problem how the BPM fits into the picture is still not clear. I am searching for a long period of time for a resolve (especially for my diploma thesis, which I want to finish this weekend )

As an addition: The book is real good and the best ressource about SAP by galileo press I read until now.

Former Member
0 Kudos

@Christian:

Thanks for the link to the thesis. I like it because it has some short summaries of things and shows another example of usage of GP.

I'm sure the huge amount of CAF tutorials will also show a lot of features and give some insights.

Wish you success with your thesis.

@Mario:

I had guessed something like that. Good to know that I'm not the only one who sees that these things have to come together.

Book is odered by the way ;o)

Connection with BPM probably is along the same lines: Originally focused for the SAP system stack (R/3) things have to open up for heterogeneous landscapes therefore VC, CAF/GP and successors will take over in the long run because they offer a superset of the functionality but allow global integration.

Open question for me is how to build processes now in the current state of things where there might exist BPM processes, VC processes, CAF/GP processes, and WebDynpro application processes, and Web Applications and WS orchestrated processes, etc. In an ideal world you could pick bits and pieces of whatever process and link them together to a new super process. Well, I guess you can reuse the underlying "services", wrap them as Callable Objects and use them in a totally new process. Or you have to find clear hand-over strategies from one (type of) process (implementation) to the other.

I'll pick CAF/GP as my favourite for the moment and see where it gets me.

Thank god life is not easy in SW development. Saves our jobs ... ;o)

Let's keep this topic open and see if other people also have some thoughts. (E.g. about strategies to use to integrate different processes)

Markus

Former Member
0 Kudos

I have to correct some of the statements above:

BPM (especially as ccBPM) is designed and now somewhat merged (?) with XI and especially capable of talking to external systems, e.g. using WSCI.

BPM in oposition to VC and GP involves no direct user interaction (only administration). Processes modelled there are executables "by themselves".

Integration of BPM with other workflows can be accomplished using messages.

In fact BPM is built for stateful message processing, can correlate messages and transform messages. BPM is useful for cross-system, cross-component integration.

VC and GP concentrate more on collaboration aspects between different business roles (people).

So maybe each of these two flavours exist in their own right and none supersedes the other.