During SAP Fiori Launchpad configuration we use semantic object.What is semantic Object and why it is used in SAP FIORI?
Thanks and Regards,
Teja
On SAP Fiori Launchpad, navigation to tiles is done via "intents".
What is an intent: An intent is a unique combination of a semantic object (for example, Purchase Order) and an action (for example, Display) and an optional set of navigation parameters.
To summarize: When a user clicks a tile in their launchpad, the intent (including optional parameters) navigates to the app and opens it.
Semantic Object: Represents a Business entity(e.g Purchase Order) which represent an application in an abstract way by not focussing on implementation.
More information on Fiori Launchpad Objects here : https://help.hana.ondemand.com/cloud_portal/frameset.htm?18b3fc15e6fe487baa99be07c1da82c3.html
https://help.sap.com/viewer/17ae0e97e0fc424a9c368f350c0ba6bd/2.14/en-US/bd8ae3d327ab4541bcce8e7353c046fc.html
The easy answer is that it allows you to map URLs to Fiori applications to objects in the Launchpad
Semantic Object:
Represents a business entity such as a customer, a sales order, or a product. Using semantic objects, you can bundle applications that reflect a specific scenario. They allow you to refer to objects in a standardized way, abstracting from concrete implementations of these objects.
You can either use semantic objects shipped by SAP, or create new semantic objects.
Please see also Configuring Navigation
Related
Experimenting with Fiori Lauchpad and have already deployed a few tiles based on Personas flavors, most of them using a generic invocation (calling transaction /personas/launch and passing as parameter the flavor ID), all of them work.
Just tried to add another tile, passing as parameter a flavor based on the SAP main menu (SMEN). As soon as I click the tile, I get the message "Transaction SMEN is locked", something of course that does not apply, since I can use the flavor normally and it's (apparently) unlocked when viewing via SM01. Any ideas?
Answer below
"Check whether the following KBA applies to your case:
2786421 - Fiori Launchpad Tile to launch Backend transaction SMEN no longer works"
Personas/health reports all green but seems that this is not classified as a personas issue
I know that I can implement an interface when defining an Entity, but I want to be able to treat all implementations of this interface as if they had a shared table, with a common Repository. To better illustrate my problem, here a two examples:
GitHub repository owners
On GitHub both users and organizations can own repositories. Let's imagine there is a User and an Organization entity. They both implement the RepositoryOwner interface that specifies stuff like an array of Repository's as a relation.
Now take a look at GitHub's "Trending developers" page. It treats User's and Organization's equally as if there was a common Repository<RepositoryOwner> that could be used to fetch the data.
Resource sharing site
A site where users can upload different types of resources like images, videos and documents. All of these types have their own Entity with different properties, but all of them implement the Resource interface. On a user's profile page there's a list of all the resources uploaded by this user. A Repository<Resource> would be very helpful again, the type of a resource is determined using typeof and displayed using an icon.
I'm assuming that you intend to share a common table from which you want to derive two more tables? In that case you can define an interface IRepositoryOwner and implement it in a base entity RepositoryOwner. And then extend RepositoryOwner to Organization and User entities.
This would allow you to retrieve an array of RepositoryOwners but repositoryOwner instanceof User would be false. And casting repositoryOwner to User would not be possible. You'd be missing the derived class properties.
Using services and actions in Form Builder it is possible to have multilevel drop down lists (e.g., Region, District, Municipality) that are automatically filtered by selection. Is there currently any way to support this sort of functionality without using services?
I think the answer is no, but need to ask. This might fit under the open issue: "FB: Actions independent from services" and maybe in conjunction with the new Datasets feature. However, I am currently using 2016.2.1 so Datasets are not an option.
Say you have a Recipe Manager application that you're building with a Web Api project. Do you send the list of recipes along with their ingredient names in JSON? Or do you send the recipes, ingredient names, and ingredient details? What's the process in determining how big the initial payload should be for a SPA?
These are the determining factors in how much to send to the client in an initial page:
Data that will be displayed for that first page
Lookup list data for any drop downs on that page
Data that is required for and presentation rules (might not be displayed but is used)
On a recipe page that would show a list of recipes, I would get the recipes and some key factors to display (like recipe name, the dish, and other key info) that can be displayed in a list. Enough for the user to make a determination on what to pick. Then when the user dives into a recipe, then go get that 1 recipe's details.
The general rule is get what you user will almost certainly need up front. Then get other data as they request it.
The process by which you determine how much data to send solely depends on the experience you want to provide your users - however it's as simple as this. If my experience demands that I readily display all of the recipes with a brief description and then allow them to drill into the recipe to get more information, then I'm only going to send enough information to produce the display and navigate further into the entity.
If then after navigating into the recipe it requires that you display the ingredient names and measures then send down that and enough information to navigate further into any single ingredient.
And as you can see it just goes on and on.
It depends if your application is just a simple HTTP API backing your web page, or your goal is something more akin to Platform As A Service. One driver for the adoption of SPA is that it makes the browser another client, just like an iOS or Android app,or a 3rd party.
If you want to support multiple clients, then it's likely that you want to design your APIs around the resources that you are trying to expose, such that you can use the uniform interface of GET/POST/PUT etc. against that resource. This will means it is much more likely that you are not coding in an client specific style and your API will be usable by a wide range of clients.
A resource is anything you would want to have its own URN.
I would suggest that is likely that in this case you would want a Recipe Book resource which has links to individual Recipe resources, which probably contain all the information necessary for that Recipe. Ingredients would only be a separate resource if you had more depth on what an Ingredient contained and they had their own resource.
At Huddle we use a Documentation Driven Design approach. That is we write the documentation for our API up front so that we can understand how usable our API would be. You can measure API quality in WTFs. http://code.google.com/p/huddle-apis/
Now this logical division might not be optimal in terms of performance. Your dealing with a classic tradeoff (ultimately architecture is all about balancing design tradeoffs) here between usability of your API and the performance of your API. Usually, don't favour performance until you know that it is an issue, because you will pay a penalty in usability or maintainability for early optimization.
Another possibility is to implement the OData query support for WebAPI. http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/odata-support-in-aspnet-web-api
That way, your clients can perform their own queries to return only the data they need.
Let's assume that I have stores, shelves in a store, and products on a shelf. So in order to get a list of products on a shelf in a store, I'd use the following request:
GET http://server/stores/123/shelves/456/products
From here, how would I get an individual product? Should I use:
GET http://server/products/789
Or:
GET http://server/stores/123/shelves/456/products/789
The first method is more concise, since once you get a list of products, you don't really care which store it belongs to if you just want to view the details for a particular product. However, the second method is more logical, since you're viewing the products for a specific shelf in a specific store.
Likewise, what about a PUT/DELETE operation?
DELETE http://server/stores/123/shelves/456/products/789
Or:
DELETE http://server/products/789
What would be the correct way of designing a schema for a tree hierarchy like this?
P.S. If I'm misunderstanding something about the REST architecture, please provide examples on how I can make this better. There's way too many people who love to say "REST is not CRUD" and "REST is not RPC", then provide absolutely no clarifications or examples of good RESTful design.
I've noted 2 approaches to RESTful URI design: hierarchical & filtered
I feel hierarchical is overly verbose, has the potential for redundant endpoints (not DRY) and disguises in what resource's state you're really interested (after all, REST = representational state transfer).
I favor Simple URIs
Simple is elegant. I'd choose a URI structure like
GET http://server/products/789
because I am interested in the state of the product resource.
If I wanted all products that belonged to a specific shelf at a specific store, then I would do
GET http://server/products?store=123&shelf=456
If I wanted to create a product at a specific store on a specific shelf then I'd post
{
product: {
store: 123,
shelf: 456,
name: "test product"
}
}
via
POST http://server/products
Ultimately, it's tomayto, tomahto
REST doesn't require one over the other. However, in my own experience, it is more efficient to consume a RESTful API that maps single entities to single endpoints (eg: RestKit object mappings on iOS) instead of having an entity map to many different endpoints based on what parameters are passed.
About REST
As far as REST, it is not a protocol and has no RFC. It is tightly related to the HTTP/1.1 RFC as a way to implement its CRUD actions, but many software engineers will posit that REST does not depend on HTTP. I disagree and consider such as conjecture, because the original dissertation by UCI's Roy Fielding (http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm) explains the deep rooted connection of REST and HTTP/1.1. You may also enjoy Roy's opinion on the topic: http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypertext-driven.
The principles defined by REST can be applied to other protocols, but REST was built for the internet and HTTP is the protocol for the world wide web.
REST vs RPC
RPC is all about making calls to remote functions and is verb-centric.
REST is all about using the CRUD convention to act on data depending on how the CRUD operation applies to a given data type and is noun-centric.
You can accomplish the same things with REST or RPC, but REST follows DRY principles because for every URI you can perform 4 actions whereas RPC requires an endpoint for each action.
PS
Much of this is my opinion and based on my experiences, but I hope it sheds some light on how you could most efficiently design a RESTful URI schema. As always, your specific goals and needs will affect your choices, but simplicity is always a good target for which to aim.
Creating a product should just be a POST to
http://server/product
Updating a product should just be a PUT to
http://server/product/$id
Getting a product should just be a GET to
http://server/product/$id
Deleting a product should just be a DELETE to
http://server/product/$id
You should use the http methods that are there for you to get more functionality out of a simpler uri structure. If creating a product requires a passing in a store and shelf as a requirement, then those should get passed in the body of your POST (or PUT if you're changing shelves).
When someone does a GET to http://server/product/$id, they will get back some kind of xml/json response, right? What does that look like? The incoming data for a create or update should be POSTed or PUT the same way in the body of the request. That is how you pass in the store and shelf, not via the uri. The uri should be as simple as possible and just point to the resource (product), using the http verbs to differentiate functionality.
If you want to be able to get the contents of shelf 23, you do a GET to
http://server/shelf/23
When you do, you get back a json / xml / custom media type document that has the shelf data and a collection of product elements with links back to their product uri.
If you want to be able to move product 23 from one shelf to another, you do a PUT to
http://server/product/23
In the body of the PUT you have the product in the representation of your choice, but with the updated shelf.
It's a weird mode of thinking at first, because you're not dealing with functionality across the entire system, but instead focusing on the resources (product, shelf, store) and using the http verbs to expose them to the universe.
Don't design a REST api based on an URL structure. Here is how I think you should go about designing a REST api.
Trying to define a REST interface without discussing what links will be contained in what resources is like discussing an RPC interface and ignoring parameters and return values.
Since products may be in several stores or several shelves (categories?), I'd have each product have a unique number regardless of its position in the hierarchy. Then use the flat product number. That makes the API more stable when some products are for instance moved in your store.
In short, don't add unneeded redundancy to your API. To get a shelve list a store ID is enough, for a product list a shelve ID is enough... etc.
it seems like you are trying to build many different use cases, but everything is getting built into one super service. It would be better to break it out.
http://server/product_info/123123 or http://server/product_info?product=123123
http://server/product_inventory?store=123&shelf=345
then you can also support:
http://server/product_inventory?store=123
then PUT and DELETE makes sense for changing inventory or adding a new product.