Application Development Discussions
Join the discussions or start your own on all things application development, including tools and APIs, programming models, and keeping your skills sharp.
cancel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

combinatin of context sensitive and non-context sensitive authorizations

Former Member

‎05-19-2011 7:47 AM

0 Kudos

Dear,

We currently have the following main switches active in our HR system:

INCON: 1

ORGXX: 1

However I wonder if it is not best practice to keep INCON en XXCON togehter. Can somebody explain to me in which case it is better to have the combination as we have it and if we should change ORGXX to XXCON as soon as possible?

I've looked everywhere for an answer but was not able to find any explanation regarding the combination of these 2 authorization switches.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards,

Tom

Edited by: trogo1986 on May 19, 2011 8:47 AM

3 REPLIES 3

Former Member

‎05-19-2011 2:55 PM

0 Kudos

Hi Tom!

Find the best practices in note 902000 and its attachments.

Cheers!

-Jesú

Former Member
In response to Former Member

‎05-19-2011 7:30 PM

0 Kudos

Thanks Jésus but I already read that PDF.

It says that you are able to combine the 2 autorization objects that I mentioned but not in which cases you would do that and if it is better to combine INCON with XXCON.

Do you have some information about that?

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,

Tom

Former Member

‎05-20-2011 5:33 AM

0 Kudos

I think it doesn't really matter if you have a combination as long as it fulfils the requirement. P_ORGXX is just additional checks for infotype 0001 and if checks against P_ORGINCON has already been passed and there is no need to check context for P_ORGXX I wouldn't worry about mixing those two. As long as it works: no worries...

'saku