Table Controls vs Editable ALVs on CustomSubscreens on CustomTabs in ME5Xn

[Former Member]

When I had to put an editable grid on a screen I popped in a MIGO dialog exit, I used an OO editable ALV with the class defined in a "C" include.

I'm looking at a similar situation now in ME5Xn where someone has used a Table Control to do the same thing on a custom subscreen of a custom tab. In this case, there's even a double table control, because the user can drill down from the first one to a second one.

From a maintainability point of view, it goes without saying that these two table controls should be rewritten as )) editable ALVs (with all the necessary OO apparatus tucked in a "C" include in Function Group XM02.)

But what about performance? Will an OO ALV perform faster than a table control? Or slower ?

[Former Member]

Hi David,

SAP ALV are part of the SAP Controls and they are optimized for performance perspective. They work on the basis of control framework. Table control is an older concept in dialog programming. So OO ALV should perform better.

-Ashim

[former_member181923]

Hi Ashim -

Thanks for confirming what I thought would be the case.

Can you provide more detail about exactly why the newer OO framework for the OO ALV is faster than the older Enjoy Table Control ???

Regards

djh