Thursday, September 10, 2009
Migrating Reports from 11i to R12
I had a big challenge to migrate the oracle rdf reports from version 11i to R12. Most of our consultants used RA_CUSTOMERS, RA_ADDRESSES, RA_CUST_SITES views to get the customer related information in the report. As you know, these tables/views are no longer used in R12.
Here, This is the trick i have used. I have created 3 views, which is based on the HZ_% tables like XX_RA_CUSTOMERS, XX_RA_ADDRESSES and XX_RA_CUST_SITES. Now, in all old rdf reports i haved included XX_ infront of RA_ and solved the issue.
There is one more easy way to solve this issue. But I have one question in this? Tell me, shall we go in this way.
Question is... Instead of making XX_RA_CUSTOMERS, why cannot create a view in the same name as RA_CUSTOMERS and drop the RA_CUSTOMERS table? I know we should not touch the oracle seeded objects. But, As per oracle R12 technical design this tables are no more...!
Here, This is the trick i have used. I have created 3 views, which is based on the HZ_% tables like XX_RA_CUSTOMERS, XX_RA_ADDRESSES and XX_RA_CUST_SITES. Now, in all old rdf reports i haved included XX_ infront of RA_ and solved the issue.
There is one more easy way to solve this issue. But I have one question in this? Tell me, shall we go in this way.
Question is... Instead of making XX_RA_CUSTOMERS, why cannot create a view in the same name as RA_CUSTOMERS and drop the RA_CUSTOMERS table? I know we should not touch the oracle seeded objects. But, As per oracle R12 technical design this tables are no more...!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Anto,
As You have mentioned some consultants had developed the Oracle RDF report, that means they are Custom RDF reports. So You can change the code / table / view as per Your Business requirement.
I will suggest not to use the Oracle Standard Names for your custom objects, as We never now what changes Oracle may come up with its new versions.
So it is better to keep custom objects with xx prefix, as You have already done.
for the same concern i'm still not touching oracle's base. Will see, what maximum we can do in this.
Post a Comment