Skip to Content
0

2LIS_11_VAITM enhancement :: MC11VA0ITM vs MCVBAP

Nov 14, 2016 at 05:36 PM

90

avatar image

Dear Team,

First of all, yes, I have used search and have not found out the proper answer :)

The question is relevantly simple, but we would like to know some pros and cons of the approach we can select now to avoid some painful cases in future.

Scenario: we need to enhance 2LIS_11_VAITM with additional fields from VBPA and VEDA

Approach #1: append extractor structure MC11VA0ITM directly using append structure

Approach #2: append structure MCVBAP and then use custom fields in LBWE the same as provided by SAP fields.

We understand that both approaches should be in any case processed by custom ABAP (user exit, BADI) to deliver data to the new fields, but the question is what is the best approach to select from maintenance and performance point of view?

Thanks and Regards,

Siarhei

10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded
* Please Login or Register to Answer, Follow or Comment.

1 Answer

Best Answer
Raf Boudewijns Nov 15, 2016 at 07:54 AM
0

I usually extend the MC++++ structures for the simple reason that in case the original developer uses a move-corresponding, fields from the base tables (in the above case VBUK, VBAK, VBUP, VBAP) are automatically filled (and there is no use to fill them in a user exit anymore). You have to be carefull with VBPA as the key is different... but I assume you already know that.

Share
10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded