Skip to Content
avatar image
Former Member

Questions regarding ChaRM and Supported Landscapes

In working through the configuration of a ChaRM prototype, I noticed the following comments in the IMG documentation.

"We recommend that you assign exactly one development system to a

production system, and that these two systems are connected by exactly

one unique transport track.

If a development system and a production system are connected by more

than one transport track, this may lead to inconsistencies within the

transport distribution. This type of transport configuration cannot be

supported by Change Request Management, and may cause inconsistencies

within the tools involved."

Our company implementation partner has proposed a four tiered

landscape consisting of systems DEC (development), QEC (test), CEC

(stage or pre-production) and PEC (production). It has been proposed

that client specific configuration be performed in DEC client 110 and

ABAP development be performed in DEC client 120. Transports would move

to QEC client 110, then to CEC client 110 and finally to PEC client 100.

Question 1. Is this client strategy supportable with chaRM?

The implementation partner has also proposed a second set of clients in

the same landscape, with client specific configuration to be performed

to be performed in DEC client 210 and transported to QEC client 210,

CEC client 200 and finally to PEC client 200.

Question 2. This appears to violate the constraint of having more than

one transport track. Is this type of client strategy supportable with

ChaRM?

Question 3. The implementation partner feels that it will be a

requirement that additional configuration of ChaRM be performed so that

there is an approval required for before a transport move to QEC,

before a move to CEC and before a move to PEC.

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Follow
  • Get RSS Feed

1 Answer

  • Feb 09, 2009 at 07:11 AM

    Hi,

    >

    > Our company implementation partner has proposed a four tiered

    > landscape consisting of systems DEC (development), QEC (test), CEC

    > (stage or pre-production) and PEC (production).

    Your Four system landscape is perfectly fine for ChaRM

    >

    >It has been proposed

    > that client specific configuration be performed in DEC client 110 and

    > ABAP development be performed in DEC client 120. Transports would move

    > to QEC client 110, then to CEC client 110 and finally to PEC client 100.

    >

    > Question 1. Is this client strategy supportable with chaRM?

    This is not supported by ChaRM

    >

    > Question 2. This appears to violate the constraint of having more than

    > one transport track. Is this type of client strategy supportable with

    > ChaRM?

    Multiple Transport Routes not Supported by ChaRM

    >

    > Question 3. The implementation partner feels that it will be a

    > requirement that additional configuration of ChaRM be performed so that

    > there is an approval required for before a transport move to QEC,

    > before a move to CEC and before a move to PEC.

    This is achievable with by configuring actions and conditions.

    Hope your questions are answered.

    Feel free to revert back.

    -=-Ragu

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded