Will this BS work for such scenarios? As i donot see it to be the case or i am doing something incorrectly.. Pl let me know

Really a nice post. from my end,tried to replicate the case.. However i donot see that “Siebel Operation Object Id” is getting populated any time. With what value would it get populated ideally. Is it the row Id of Primary BC of a BO on which the WF would be acting. In my case i have the BO defined for the WF and Primary BC is the one which i am using via this BS,still unable to see the value in “Siebel Operation Object Id”.
Pl guide me,what could be the case…

Thumbs up, and keep it going!

Cheers
Christian

Well, I haven’t tried this out myself, but, if you say, could be an issue. I guess it’s becoming too long in the comments here. What I suggest is you write out a small article on your findings and carry it forward from where Ankit has left off.

I can ensure it’s published here in your name. Once again, thanks for sharing. Cheers!

I am using this BS on siebel 7.8. I want to say about count records that it was not giving any output. We used one billing account number and tried to count assets present.We tried first with one ambiguous value then also there was no exception. Then we manually created one billing account having no assets which was in database still it showed same behaviour.

http://geeksbloggingat.com/2009/07/09/siebel-eai-siebel-adapter-looping-multiple-records/

We appreciate your contribution so far, Chandra. Thanks!

Nice to come across somebody who has done as much research with this BS as me!
As per my research, this is true only till an extent. This BS DOES throw an error in case of no records found. I found this different than my expectation when I began using it, as it broke the loop and went into the Error Branch. But, I guess that is a subject of a separate post. You are right when you say that we need to use Echo or some other similar method to update an appropriate error message in this case.

Do let us know of the issues in CountRecords. It’s a long time since I worked on this BS, and maybe you would like to add something to what we have discussed here. Also, let us know of the Siebel version you are trying this on.

Also count records Does not work properly.

You are right when you say that this BS is not documented. Thus, it’s not supported by Oracle either. But, there are so many similar undocumented methods we use in Siebel for customization, no?

As for your experience of the pointer not moving, well, we have run this in production. It’s processed millions of records till now. We NEVER faced an issue because of this BS.

In any case, we don’t recommend it. It’s a question of personal choice. Script it, or follow the untreaded, undocumented path!!

Cheers

So for now one should refrain using this.

Nice to see that we all concur on the BEST solution..

1. I hope now it is clear what custom business service I was talking about in my first comment. I tried to put an explaination in comment but it just got too looong…

2. This is not a critisism, just an observation.

3. I don’t think example is baad, it is good… but I just thought it could be better

4. I never asked “Why you need script”, I understand that there are some validations that need to be done so you need a custom business service. It is okay!!

5. I would still do everything in custom BS for this particular requirement, for 200 other reasons… my personal choice!!

I just came across some particular references on the Internet, where the method outlined above has come under criticism. The author says, why do I need to use the Vanilla Business Service above if all I need to do is Set the Line Item Status?

Nice question, which actually puts the comment by Neel in pretty good perspective. I will explain.

Yes, it is a very baad (note the double ‘a’!) example that the author has chosen to actually explain the concept above! If we are in fact updating the Line Item status based on the Row Id, the entire concept loses its value, as you are in fact looping through the recordset retrieved from the DB, and also, updating it one by one in a separate step! I agree. In fact, the post, Updating Multiple Line Items in One Go on GeeksBlogging@dotCOM is much more relevant as we can just use a Single vanilla Siebel Operation step itself to update all the records at once. Still, why do I need scripts, Neel??

I can’t help smiling.
I guess a better example that the author could have taken, is to replace the Set Line Item Status step with a Subprocess, to process the record by record fields. That would essentially mean, you are not using scripts (I am deadset against them!) to query multiple records in Siebel, and actually using Vanilla Siebel methods to do the entire query and processing. I still have to see better solutions anywhere, or from anybody to implementing this requirement. In any case, it does NOT bring down the value of the concept explained above. Business Requirements can always vary.

Requirement statement: Query multiple records in Siebel, and process fields data one by one, possibly in outbound EAI Service calls. Tell me if you can do it without using scripts, and without using SIA BC Utility Service!

Cheers

I don’t really comprehend why I would need two different BS here.
Yes, the BS takes forward the context. So, the Primary BC and Links within the BO are important, just like the vanilla Siebel Operation step.

In the example above, we used only one BS, only once. And it worked perfectly.

“.. need to create two BC instances (one by vanilla BS and the other inside Custom BS) ..”
we don’t have a custom BS here. No scripting! Why do I need a custom BS at all?

“.. where as if we go for scripting we just need to call one business service and just one BC – BO instance ..”
I am deadset against scripting, my personal opinion. Not that I am commenting on whether which one’s better. This is an alternative to scripting for querying multiple records and processing them one by one.

The SIA BC Utility Service does not really have an overhead that I have noticed. Even if it did, I would still prefer this over scripting, for 200 different reasons. My personal choice!

Too many questions. Let me try to handle them one by one!

“.. Does this business service works on active BC instance or inactive BC instance ..”
Nothing like an active or inactive BC Instance here. If you notice carefully, Ankit has mentioned about Business Component Name as an input to the BS. The BC you are querying must be there in the BO defined for the workflow, though.

Does this business service works on active BC instance or inactive BC instance.

If it works on Inactive BC then it will result in call to two business services and
need to create two BC instances (one by vanilla BS and the other inside Custom BS)

where as if we go for scripting we just need to call one business service and just one BC – BO instance

In any case, wait for my post tomorrow morning, sharp 8 AM IST. I will present my alternative solution.

I also saw that in the vanilla Siebel workflows that use the same method as described above, the Query Records step was preceded by a normal Siebel operation step, excuting the same query.

I still think it’s quite sad that there is no easier way to loop through records of the primary BC. The method above is a nice option, but sadly it isn’t documented at all.

Thanks
Rick