Axel uhl sap@md-day2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Axel uhl sap@md-day2011

on

  • 883 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
883
Views on SlideShare
883
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
53
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Axel uhl sap@md-day2011 Axel uhl sap@md-day2011 Presentation Transcript

  • Where Modeling Has ArrivedAn Overview: Model-Driven Software Development at SAPDr. Axel Uhl, Chief Development Architect, Technology Strategy, SAP AGNovember 24, 2011
  • Does Anyone Remember…?MDA as thought of by the OMG MOF-centric Maybe using UML Common Warehouse Metamodel? Collection of implementation technologies (Java, .net, CORBA, Web Services) XML-based model interchange Typical set of services and concerns (security, transactions) Intended for business domains Facilitated by model transformations© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 2
  • Some of It Confused Many of UsWhat’s optional? What’s mandatory? Do domain-specific languages (DSL) fit in, or is it only UML?What works, what doesn’t? Can I really exchange my models (repeatedly) using XMI? Diagrams…?What’s with CIM, PIM and PSM?How much vendor support is there? What’s my choice of enterprise-grade MOF repository implementations? What if I already have other, non-MOF repositories? Does XMI really help me to get from one vendor’s tool to the next? If I design my MDA-compliant model transformations, will they survive?© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 3
  • What’s Modeling Anyway (or: Is Modeling ≡ UML)?There are many commonalities in what we call “programming language” and“modeling language.” Both  have abstract and concrete syntax  can be of rather declarative or imperative nature  can use different types of representation o (though we usually think of programming language artifacts as ASCII strings) strive for adequate abstractions, concern separation and aspect localizationMany challenges of “programming” also exist for “modeling” physical partitioning and management of artifacts, multi-level editing dependencies, extensibility teamwork aspects (change management, versioning, ...)What’s the difference between a code generator / model transformer and a compiler? a piece of C++ code and a sequence chart?© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 4
  • Language History© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 5
  • Language History© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 6
  • Language History© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 7
  • Abstraction Improves Portability complete replace platform components 2&1 complete, deployed specification migration effort with system specification provided at abstract, portable levels amount of specification content migration effort with specification provided in platform-specific ways Enabling / cost reduction for  architecture evolution  optimization across layers sketches stack of abstractions and languages (examples only) process models component behavior runtime (e.g., ARIS) models (UML) (e.g., ABAP) (e.g., C/C++)© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 8
  • Abstraction Improves Development Efficiency Take path of least effort  Detailing at low abstraction level causes extra effort and errors.  Example: write an object-oriented business application in assembler© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 9
  • Abstract Properly!This is what the art of software design is all about. Focus on the application domain Suppress unnecessary detail Avoid unnecessary dependencies Anticipate future changeSounds familiar?Those are (more or less) key characteristics of modeling Represent some real thing homomorphically Prof. Dr. Herbert Stachowiak Representation and real thing are linked by a projection The projection is driven by the pragmatics© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 10
  • London Tube Map© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 11
  • Crash Test Dummy© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 12
  • Mannequins© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 13
  • Partial Views© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 14
  • Scale Models© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 15
  • ...and the Wiring Plan as another Partial View© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 16
  • ModelingHow is a model trying to help? More adequate domain abstractions Less dependency on volatile underlying platform(s) No unnecessary detailsThe modeling language and its environmentintroduce a “platform” of their own (PIM vs. PSM…) This platform has its own fate and mission. It may decay just the same way as other platforms have disappeared. Where’s your compiler that you wrote for your DSL back in 2001…?© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 17
  • Models as DocumentationExample: SAP’s TechnicalArchitecture Modeling (TAM)Standard UML enhancements for architecture models Required by SAP processes. Accepted by architects.© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 18
  • Models for Interoperability and StandardizationExample: Banking Industry Architecture Network (BIAN) Standardizes a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) in the banking industry Defines a BIAN meta model using MOF Defines a UML profile allowing UML tools to edit BIAN models Uses Object Constraint Language (OCL) to validate domain models o Against UML profile o Against domain rules Generates HTML documentation from the models Will be able to generate XML Schemas from message types defined in models http://www.bian.org/content© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 19
  • Structured Metadata / Models in Development at SAPWith SAP’s history, using repositories for structured metadata is very usual. ABAP and R/3 largely work this way. Many SAP tools followed this general paradigm. Only two out of hundreds use a MOF-compliant repository UML plays no role in “blueprint modeling” (models that impact the executable software by transformation or interpretation)© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 20
  • The Tool Ticker – Integration Builder: Data Types Data Type Name & Namespace Software ComponentsVersions Data Type Structure / XML Schema© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 21
  • The Tool Ticker – Integration Builder: Business Objects New Service Interface New Data Type New Business Object© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 22
  • The Tool Ticker – Integration Builder: Business ObjectsBusiness Objectaggregates BO Nodes Key Data Structure (Re-)Use of Data Types© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 23
  • The Tool Ticker – Integration Builder: Business Objects Actions for Business Logic Queries for retrieval of BO Nodes Associations between BO Nodes© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 24
  • The Tool Ticker – ABAP BO Proxy Generator ES Repository Browser Name Mapping Type Mapping Corresponding ABAP Data Type to in ES Builder modeled Data Type© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 25
  • The Tool Ticker – ABAP BO Viewer Key Data StructureBusiness Object (Re-)Use of Data Typesaggregates BO Nodes Name Mapping© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 26
  • The Tool Ticker – Maestro State & Action Modeling© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 27
  • The Tool Ticker – Visual Composer 05 (WD Pattern) ES Browser connects to ES Repository Empty OIP Pattern© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 28
  • The Tool Ticker – Visual Composer 05 (WD Pattern) BO Query Search View Result View Data Source Query© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 29
  • The Tool Ticker – Visual Composer: UI Layout© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 30
  • The Tool Ticker – Visual Composer: UI Layout© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 31
  • The Tool Ticker – Visual Composer: UI Layout A lot of input fields, but only few are really needed© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 32
  • The Tool Ticker – Visual Composer: Pattern Configuration Disable most of the optional input fields Search View© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 33
  • The Tool Ticker – Visual Composer: AnalyticalDashboards© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 34
  • The Tool Ticker – Portal Content Studio© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 35
  • The Tool Ticker – Portal Content Studio© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 36
  • The Tool Ticker – WD Java: Data Modeler© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 37
  • The Tool Ticker – WD Java: Navigation Modeler© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 38
  • The Tool Ticker – J2EE Toolset© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 39
  • The Tool Ticker – J2EE Toolset© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 40
  • The Tool Ticker – Java Dictionary© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 41
  • The Tool Ticker – Composite Application Framework© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 42
  • The Tool Ticker – Guided Procedures© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 43
  • The Tool Ticker – Guided Procedures© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 44
  • The Tool Ticker – Guided Procedures© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 45
  • The Tool Ticker – Guided Procedures© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 46
  • The Tool Ticker – BEx Web Analyzer Drag and Drop© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 47
  • The Tool Ticker – ESA Tool Overview Interface Structure Model Interface Structure Model (Business Document Object) XML - Schema Level 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 <X1> <A1> <A2> <A2> <A3> <A3> A1 A2 <A1> <X2> A3 <X3> <C2> X1 X2 X3 C2 <C1> C1 <C1> X X4 B3 B4 <X3> <C2> <X2> <X4> <B3> <B4> <B4> <B3> <X4> Directed relationships <X1> ESA ScenarioSolution Map Configured Scenario Sales Order Quotation Processing RFQ Processing at Customer Variant Details Supply Planning Sales Order Purchase Order Processing at Process Interaction Model Processing (XI Repository) Customer A Inbound Delivery Outbound Delivery Processing at Processing Customer A Supplier Invoice Customer Invoice Processing at Processing Customer A A Due Item Processing Object Data Type A Payment Processing Payment Processing Model at Business Partner Accounting Payment processing Bank statement A Document at house bank creation at bank Processing Process Step Documentation Status Model © 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 48
  • The Tool Ticker – Solution Composer© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 49
  • The Tool Ticker – ARIS: Process Components© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 50
  • The Tool Ticker – Business Workflow© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 51
  • The Tool Ticker – Business Workflow© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 52
  • The Tool Ticker – Business Workflow© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 53
  • The Tool Ticker – Business Workflow© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 54
  • The Tool Ticker – Business Workflow© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 55
  • The Tool Ticker – Enterprise Data Warehouse: Transform.© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 56
  • The Tool Ticker – Enterprise Data Warehouse: Extraction© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 57
  • The Tool Ticker – ABAP Class Builder© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 58
  • The Tool Ticker – ABAP Web Dynpro© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 59
  • The Tool Ticker – ABAP: Graphical Screenpainter© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 60
  • The Tool Ticker – ABAP Data Modeler© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 61
  • The Tool Ticker – ABAP Dictionary: Foreign Keys© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 62
  • The Tool Ticker – Integration Builder: Business Scenarios© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 63
  • The Tool Ticker – BI: Query Designer© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 64
  • The Tool Ticker – BI: Report Designer© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 65
  • The Tool Ticker – BI: Web Application Designer© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 66
  • The Tool Ticker – Mobile Design Time© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 67
  • The Tool Ticker – Mobile Design Time© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 68
  • The Tool Ticker – JLin© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 69
  • The Tool Ticker – Unit Testing© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 70
  • The Tool Ticker – eCatt© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 71
  • The Tool Ticker – TestZone© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 72
  • The Tool Ticker – Web Dynpro Authoring Tool ABAP© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 73
  • The Tool Ticker – Web Dynpro Authoring Tool Java© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 74
  • The Tool Ticker This could go on for a long time… ... MOM, SLD, FDT, KM, Shanghai Tool, Easy Enhancement Workbench, ... Few of these tools - integrate in the same workbench environment - use compatible, integrated model repository technology - support end-to-end consistency checks - support methods for agile refactoring© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 75
  • Or as Foote & Yoder Call ItBig Balls of Mud (Also Works for Spaghetti…)“A BIG BALL OF MUD is haphazardly structured,sprawling, sloppy, duct-tape and bailing wire,spaghetti code jungle. We’ve all seen them. Thesesystems show unmistakable signs of unregulatedgrowth, and repeated, expedient repair. Informationis shared promiscuously among distant elements ofthe system, often to the point where nearly all theimportant information becomes global orduplicated. The overall structure of the system maynever have been well defined. If it was, it may haveeroded beyond recognition. Programmers with ashred of architectural sensibility shun thesequagmires. Only those who are unconcerned aboutarchitecture, and, perhaps, are comfortable with theinertia of the day-to-day chore of patching the holesin these failing dikes, are content to work on suchsystems.” [http://www.laputan.org/mud/]© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 76
  • Textual Modeling – An Important Trend?Martin Fowler wrote about it http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/languageWorkbench.htmlSeveral frameworks support it e.g., EMFText, Xtext, FURCAS, TMF, TCS, MontiCore, (Oslo)General concept Consider the abstract syntax tree (AST) a model Consider the textual representation a view of a part of the modelFrameworks vary greatly… …in how they can deal with partial and/or overlapping views …in how they preserve lexical information (whitespaces, line breaks, comments) …in how they can store, retrieve and manage the models …in what textual grammar classes they support …in how powerful the mapping between meta model and textual syntax can be.© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 77
  • Different Approaches towards Textual DSLsCompilers, hand-written File System Parse into repository for Compiler-Compilers, lex/yacc et al. improved tool support; hand-written .o smart editors with Compiler .class syntax and error highlighting; File System see SNiFF, Eclipse JDT and others Language workbench, .o Compiler .class deriving editor, parser and index automatically “Index” from mapping specification resulting in different Graphical Textual qualities Tools Tools geared towards different boundary conditions both make language design with tool support a lot easier Textual tools, projectional editors, workingGraphical tools, working on structured object repository, database-likeon structured object repository,database-like © 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 78
  • A Real Difference: Partial, Overlapping Wheel is part of two diagrams; each diagram only shows part of the domain vehicles vehicles Vehicle +wheels Wheel 0..1 1..* +doors Wheel Car Door 0..1 0..* 0..1 1 +engine Engine The challenge: updates through one view may update another© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 79
  • A Real Difference: Partial, Overlapping Add attributes to Wheel vehicles vehicles Vehicle +wheels Wheel 0..1 1..* Car +doors Door 0..1 0..* 0..1 1 +engine Engine© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 80
  • A Real Difference: Partial, Overlapping They also show up here, distort the layout and go against the view’s purpose vehicles vehicles© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 81
  • A Real Difference: Partial, Overlapping So we remove them from the other view, but not the underlying domain model vehicles vehicles Vehicle +wheels Wheel 0..1 1..* Car +doors Door 0..1 0..* 0..1 1 +engine Engine© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 82
  • A Real Difference: Partial, Overlapping Adding classes and associations, however, typically does not alter other views vehicles vehicles Vehicle +wheels Wheel 0..1 1..* Car +doors Door 0..1 0..* 0..1 1 +engine Engine© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 83
  • A Real Difference: Partial, OverlappingWith partial, overlapping views, delete has to come in two flavors. Delete from view… vehicles vehicles Vehicle +wheels Wheel 0..1 1..* Car +doors Door 0..1 0..* 0..1 1 +engine Engine © 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 84
  • A Real Difference: Partial, Overlapping …and delete from domain model vehicles vehicles Vehicle +wheels Wheel 0..1 1..* Car +doors Door AirPressureSensor 0..1 0..* 0..1 1 +engine Engine© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 85
  • Imagine the same for Text Wheel class showing in two views of the vehicles package, one of them partial package vehicles { class Vehicle { package vehicles { Wheel 1..* wheels; class Wheel { } } class Wheel {} } class Car extends Vehicle { Door 0..* doors; Engine 1..1 engine; } class Engine {} }© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 86
  • Imagine the same for Text Wheel class as partial view; Package vehicles with two partial views package vehicles { class Vehicle { package vehicles { Wheel 1..* wheels; class Wheel { } Double radius; class Wheel {} Boolean tubeless; class Car extends Vehicle { Double width; Door 0..* doors; AirPressureSensor 0..1 airPressureSensor; Engine 1..1 engine; } } class AirPressureSensor {} class Engine {} } }© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 87
  • Imagine the same for Text Add attributes to Wheel class package vehicles { class Vehicle { package vehicles { Wheel 1..* wheels; class Wheel { } Double radius; class Wheel {} Boolean tubeless; class Car extends Vehicle { Double width; Door 0..* doors; } Engine 1..1 engine; } } class Engine {} }© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 88
  • Imagine the same for Text Attributes also show up here package vehicles { class Vehicle { Wheel 1..* wheels; package vehicles { } class Wheel { class Wheel { Double radius; Double radius; Boolean tubeless; Boolean tubeless; Double width; Double width; } } } class Car extends Vehicle { Door 0..* doors; Engine 1..1 engine; } class Engine {} }© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 89
  • Imagine the same for Text So we remove them from the other view, but not the underlying domain model package vehicles { class Vehicle { package vehicles { Wheel 1..* wheels; class Wheel { } Double radius; class Wheel {} Boolean tubeless; class Car extends Vehicle { Double width; Door 0..* doors; } Engine 1..1 engine; } } class Engine {} }© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 90
  • Imagine the same for Text Adding classes and associations may not alter other views package vehicles { class Vehicle { package vehicles { Wheel 1..* wheels; class Wheel { } Double radius; class Wheel {} Boolean tubeless; class Car extends Vehicle { Double width; Door 0..* doors; AirPressureSensor 0..1 airPressureSensor; Engine 1..1 engine; } } class AirPressureSensor {} class Engine {} } }© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 91
  • Imagine the same for TextWith partial, overlapping views, delete has to come in two flavors. Delete from view… package vehicles { class Vehicle { package vehicles { Wheel 1..* wheels; class Wheel { } Double radius; class Wheel {} Boolean tubeless; class Car extends Vehicle { Double width; Door 0..* doors; AirPressureSensor 0..1 airPressureSensor; Engine 1..1 engine; } } class AirPressureSensor {} class Engine {} } }© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 92
  • Imagine the same for Text …and delete from domain model package vehicles { class Vehicle { package vehicles { Wheel 1..* wheels; class Wheel { } Double radius; class Wheel {} Boolean tubeless; class Car extends Vehicle { Double width; Door 0..* doors; AirPressureSensor 0..1 airPressureSensor; Engine 1..1 engine; } } class AirPressureSensor {} class Engine {} } } This is pretty unusual for a text editor. But it is what happens when you apply the core principles of modeling. Under which circumstances is this useful?© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 93
  • Is Modeling a Lost Cause?Not necessarily Some convergence on Eclipse / EMF (at least somehow like EMOF) Starting to use EMF as façade for existing design-time data / models UML in widespread use for documentation OCL starting to gain foothold in model validation Some “textual modeling” starting, mostly based on EMFHowever Still too many heterogeneous repositories and tool workbenches Model interchange (XMI?) does not seem to solve our problems No standards in use for model transformation / code generation Tools lag behind in quality compared to tools for handling source code© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 94
  • SummaryModeling adds to the history of computing Partial and overlapping views, using different forms of notation Comes with its own set of challengesUntil modeling tools reach the maturity of, say, an Eclipse JDT, developers willperceive them as hindrance rather than accelerator.We need broadly-accepted and working standardsWe shouldn’t try to automate insoluble mapping problems. “Computer! Turn my little high-level sketch into an executable system!”“Textual modeling” trend can bridge some gaps in interesting ways.© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 95
  • Thank You! Questions? axel.uhl@sap.com© 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 96
  • © 2011 SAP AG. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.Weitergabe und Vervielfältigung dieser Publikation oder von Teilen daraus sind, Java ist eine eingetragene Marke von Sun Microsystems, Inc.zu welchem Zweck und in welcher Form auch immer, ohne die ausdrückliche JavaScript ist eine eingetragene Marke der Sun Microsystems, Inc., verwendetschriftliche Genehmigung durch SAP AG nicht gestattet. In dieser Publikation unter der Lizenz der von Netscape entwickelten und implementierten Technologie.enthaltene Informationen können ohne vorherige Ankündigung geändert werden. SAP, R/3, SAP NetWeaver, Duet, PartnerEdge, ByDesign, SAP BusinessObjectsDie von SAP AG oder deren Vertriebsfirmen angebotenen Softwareprodukte Explorer, StreamWork und weitere im Text erwähnte SAP-Produkte und -können Softwarekomponenten auch anderer Softwarehersteller enthalten. Dienstleistungen sowie die entsprechenden Logos sind Marken oder eingetrageneMicrosoft, Windows, Excel, Outlook, und PowerPoint sind eingetragene Marken Marken der SAP AG in Deutschland und anderen Ländern.der Microsoft Corporation. Business Objects und das Business-Objects-Logo, BusinessObjects, CrystalIBM, DB2, DB2 Universal Database, System i, System i5, System p, System p5, Reports, Crystal Decisions, Web Intelligence, Xcelsius und andere im TextSystem x, System z, System z10, System z9, z10, z9, iSeries, pSeries, xSeries, erwähnte Business-Objects-Produkte und Dienstleistungen sowie diezSeries, eServer, z/VM, z/OS, i5/OS, S/390, OS/390, OS/400, AS/400, S/390 entsprechenden Logos sind Marken oder eingetragene Marken der BusinessParallel Enterprise Server, PowerVM, Power Architecture, POWER6+, POWER6, Objects Software Ltd. Business Objects ist ein Unternehmen der SAP AG.POWER5+, POWER5, POWER, OpenPower, PowerPC, BatchPipes, Sybase und Adaptive Server, iAnywhere, Sybase 365, SQL Anywhere undBladeCenter, System Storage, GPFS, HACMP, RETAIN, DB2 Connect, RACF, weitere im Text erwähnte Sybase-Produkte und -Dienstleistungen sowie dieRedbooks, OS/2, Parallel Sysplex, MVS/ESA, AIX, Intelligent Miner, WebSphere, entsprechenden Logos sind Marken oder eingetragene Marken der Sybase Inc.Netfinity, Tivoli und Informix sind Marken oder eingetragene Marken der IBM Sybase ist ein Unternehmen der SAP AG.Corporation. Alle anderen Namen von Produkten und Dienstleistungen sind Marken derLinux ist eine eingetragene Marke von Linus Torvalds in den USA und anderen jeweiligen Firmen. Die Angaben im Text sind unverbindlich und dienen lediglich zuLändern. Informationszwecken. Produkte können länderspezifische UnterschiedeAdobe, das Adobe-Logo, Acrobat, PostScript und Reader sind Marken oder aufweisen.eingetragene Marken von Adobe Systems Incorporated in den USA und/oder Die in dieser Publikation enthaltene Information ist Eigentum der SAP. Weitergabeanderen Ländern. und Vervielfältigung dieser Publikation oder von Teilen daraus sind, zu welchemOracle ist eine eingetragene Marke der Oracle Corporation. Zweck und in welcher Form auch immer, nur mit ausdrücklicher schriftlicherUNIX, X/Open, OSF/1 und Motif sind eingetragene Marken der Open Group. Genehmigung durch SAP AG gestattet.Citrix, ICA, Program Neighborhood, MetaFrame, WinFrame, VideoFrame undMultiWin sind Marken oder eingetragene Marken von Citrix Systems, Inc.HTML, XML, XHTML und W3C sind Marken oder eingetragene Marken desW3C®, World Wide Web Consortium, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. © 2011 SAP AG. All rights reserved. 98