EREC: Question concerning system landscape

[Christian_Gaert]

Hi all,

I'm looking for someone who has excperience with a systemlandscape like this:

development-system: one frontend-system and one backend-system

quality-system: one frontend-system and one backend-system

produktive-system: one frontend-system and one backend-system

training-system: only one system (backend=frontend)

The customer has no transport connection between the frontend- and backend-systems. There are transport connections between the frontend systems and the backend systems.

The question is: which transport requests go into the training-system? Do we have a problem, when the frontend- and backend-transports go into the training-system?

Thanks in advance!

Regards

Chris

[romanweise]

Hello Chris,

first of all I am a bit confused why there is no connection between the frontend and the backend systems. The best practice approach for implementing an e-recruiting project with frontend / backend separation is to do all customizing and development on the dev backend server and then transport to the dev frontend system to ensure th systems are in sync. Parallel customizing and development in frontend and backend is not adviced.

In general the training system should have the same system architecture as all other eRec systems in the landscape. This way even if there are customer developments which have been done in a way that only supports your project landscape instead of supporting all possible eRec landscapes (integrated / standalone, frontend / backend separation, ... ) they will work properly on training. Furthermore the system setup will be the same.

Of course it could work if you use a training system without frontend / backend separation if this has been thoroughly planned during the project. If you can ensure that all developments have been done in a way that they support this landscape this should work. Special in your case, if you have really implemented in parallel on frontend and backend you must have applied and tracked sufficient naming conventions to prevent any conflict in development objects when they are combined on one system. (As the effort to implement the required processes and tools to ensure the compliance to such development standards is usually exceeding the costs for a small separated training frontend server having the training landscape aligned to the other systems landscape is the bst solution).

Kind Regards

Roman