Open larshp opened 3 years ago
Thanks, for the proposal. I am struggling whether we really should go this way for the following reasons:
scoping & conventions over exceptions
Lets take an example PROG ZFOOBAR, serializing each LIMU could give the following files(?)
zfoobar.prog.zfoobar.rept.json
zfoobar.prog.zfoobar.cuad.json
zfoobar.prog.rezfoobar.docu.json
zfoobar.prog.2000.dynp.json
zfoobar.prog.json
zfoobar.prog.abap
(this is the REPS)Serializing all JSON into single file would give
zfoobar.prog.json
zfoobar.prog.abap
Putting all the ABAP code into one *.abap file is trivial for reports but already cumbersome for classes for the reasons @schneidermic0 mentioned (like mapping LIMU METH changes to the one implementations include...) What I did not get was if @larshp is advocating one or many json files per PROG above. I understood the initial comment more in the latter sense (json files per rept, cuad, docu, dynp, etc.), which I would also be in favor of.
https://github.com/SAP/abap-file-formats/blob/main/doc/specification.md#file-names
ABAP should go into ABAP files, one file, like its presented to the developer in Eclipse
Metadata for a object(R3TR) should go into a single metadata file per object, having eg. one metadata file per dynpro, per CUA etc. makes it more complex IMHO, more schemas, more things to check on serialization/deserialization time
Translations: something, I've not thought much about these yet, deferred to #106