PetStore doc, domain model, design decisions, etc

Hello,
I've downloaded the PetStore from http://java.sun.com/developer/releases/petstore/ . I installed it and it was ok.
As it is an example project, I would like to get detailed documentation about this. I mean if a project like this starts what kind of decisions we have, what is the domain model look like, why?, etc.. So a complate description of the project.
I have checked the web with google but I have not find anything related to this. Would you help me, please?

Any one know where we can get Business Model, Domain Model and Object Model for Pet store app?
Thanks.

Similar Messages

Best practise - Domain model design

Hello forum,
we're writing an application divided into three sub projects where one of the sub projects will be realized using J2EE and the other two sub projects are stand alone fat client applications realized using Swing. So that's the background...
And now the questions:
After doing some research on J2EE best practise topics I found the TransferObject-Pattern (http://java.sun.com/blueprints/corej2eepatterns/Patterns/TransferObject.html) which we certainly want to apply to the J2EE sub project and to one of the standalone client applications also. To avoid code duplications I like the "Entity Inherits Transfer Object Strategy" approach outlined in the document referenced above. But why does the entity bean inherit from the transfer object class and not vice versa? In my opinion the tranfer object adds additional functionality (coarse grained getData()-method) to the class and isn't it a design goal in OO languages that the class that extends a base class has more functionality than the base class?
For the standalone application we want to use a similar approach and the first idea is to desgin the entitys and let the TO classes extend these entitys.
When I get it right the basic idea behind all of these design schemes is the "Proxy pattern" but when I design it using the previously mentioned way (Entity <-- EntityTO) I will have a very mighty prox beeing able to execute all operations the base class is able to execute.
Any tips and comments welcome!
Thanks in advance!
Henning

Hello Kaj,
at first - thanks for your fast response and sorry for coming back to this topic so late.
After reading a bit more on patterns in general what about avoiding inheritance
completely and using the proxy pattern instead (As explained eg.
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2002/jw-0222-designpatterns.html here) - so moving the design to a "has a" relationship rather than an "is a" relationship.
In the previous post you said that the client shouldn't be aware that there are entity beans and therefore the mentioned implementation was chosen - But if I implement it vice versa (Entity is base class, TO extends entity) and do not expose any of the methods of the entity bean I would achieve the same effect, or not? Clients are only able to work with the TOs.
I have some headaches implementing it in SUN's recommended way because of the Serialization support necessary within the TOs. Implemented in SUN's way the Entity bean would also have serialization support which isn't necessary because they're persisted using Hibernate.
Thanks in advance
Henning

COPA vs. BCS design decisions (ex. profitability by customer in BCS)

We are trying to meet a business goal of identifying gross profit by customer.
We realize "customer" as a field in BCS is problematic, so we are thinking of only storing certain customers in BCS with a catch-all "Others" customer - with the goal of keeping the BCS data volume reasonable.
Consider the scenario: US company sells material X qty 1 to Spain company for 100 with cost of 30 (therefore profit of 70)
Spain sells same material X qty 1 to third-party customer for 120.
Spain from a local perspective profits 20, however the group from an overall perspective profits 90 ( the US revenues of 100 eliminate against the Spain COGS of 100 so you are left with revenue of 120, COGS 30, profit 90 - from the group perspective ).
We want to know how to see, on a customer level, the 90 profit from these transactions.
We do not believe COPA can do this, can this may be accomplished in BCS?
If you do a "one-sided" elimination (elimination driven by the revenue side only) of the intercompany revenue the system would not be able to reference customer on the elimination. We are wondering if this scenario of analyzing overall profit by customer can be accomplished by BCS functionality and are particularly interested in knowing what functionality you used to accomplish this requirement and in what sequence within the BCS close (BCS monitor).
Thank you in advance for any input you may have.
Also we are interested in any opinions/comments anyone may have about design decisions regarding BCS vs. COPA in BW. BCS business content identifies a sample design for a BCS data model including item, company, movement type, trading partner, functional area, etc. COPA (as configured in R3/ECC and extracted to BW) commonly features analysis by customer, material, etc. Considering BCS features elimination functionality, what design concerns have people faced with respect to fields that they include in both reporting systems? Obviously a prominent concern is sizing of the systems, but what common characteristics has anyone decided to feature in both systems? What considerations drove the decisions as to what common characteristics to feature in both BCS and COPA?

Hi John,
Reg, your last question - might be useful info in here, if you have not seen it yet:
Re: Reports using COPA cube, BCS Cube

Performance impacts of attributes versus entities in data model design

I'm trying to understand the performance implications of two possible data model designs.
Here's my entity structure:
global > the person > the account > the option
Typically at runtime I instantiate one person, one account, and five option 's.
There are various amounts determined by the person's age that need to be assigned to the correct option.
Here are my two designs:
Design one
attributes on the person entity:
the person's age
the person's option 1 amount
the person's option 2 amount
the person's option 3 amount
the person's option 4 amount
the person's option 5 amount
attributes on the option endity:
the option's amount
supporting rule table:
the option's amount =
the person's option 1 amount if the option is number 1
the person's option 2 amount if the option is number 2
the person's option 3 amount if the option is number 3
the person's option 4 amount if the option is number 4
the person's option 5 amount if the option is number 5
Design two
attributes on the person entity:
the person's age
attributes on the option entity:
the option's amount
the option's option 1 amount
the option's option 2 amount
the option's option 3 amount
the option's option 4 amount
the option's option 5 amount
supporting rule table:
the option's amount =
the option's option 1 amount if the option is number 1
the option's option 2 amount if the option is number 2
the option's option 3 amount if the option is number 3
the option's option 4 amount if the option is number 4
the option's option 5 amount if the option is number 5
Given the two designs, I can see what looks like an advantage for Design one in that at runtime you have less attributes (6 on the one pension member + 1 on each of 5 options =11) than Design two (1 on the one pension member + 6 on each of 5 options = 31), but I'm not sure. An advantage for Design two might be that the algorithm has to do less traversing of the entity structure: the supporting rule table finds everything for the option's amount on the option.
Either way there is a rule table to determine the amounts:
Design one
the person's option 1 amount =
2 if the person's age = 10
5 if the person's age = 11
7 if the person's age = 12, etc.
Design two
the option's option 1 amount =
2 if the person's age = 10
5 if the person's age = 11
7 if the person's age = 12, etc.
Here it looks like the rulebase would have to do more traversing of the entity structure for Design two.
Which design is going to have better performance with a large amount of rules, or would it make a difference at all?

Hi!
In our experience you only need to think about things like this if you were dealing with 100s or 1000s of instances (typically via ODS). As you have a very low number, the differences will be negligible, and you should (usually) go with the solution which is the most similar to the source material or the business user's understanding. I also assume this is an OWD project? Which can be even better, since the inferencing is done incrementally when new data is added to the rulebase, rather than in one "big bang" like ODS.
It looks like design 1 is the simplest to understand and explain. I'm just wondering why you need the option entity at all, since it seems like a to-one relationship? So the person can only have one option 1 amount, one option 2 amount etc, and there are only ever going to be (up to) 5 options...is that assumption correct? If so, you could just keep these as attributes on the person level without the need for instances. If there are other requirements for an option instance then of course, use them, but given the information here, the option entity doesnt seem to be needed. That would be the fastest of all :-)
Either way, as the number of instances is so low, you should have nothing to worry about in terms of performance.
Hope this helps! Write back if you have any more info / questions.
Cheers,
Ben

Design decision / purpose / aim of audit trail

Hi,
since the audit trail doesn't contain so many data and BAM is great for real time monitoring my question is: What is the design decision, or the purpose / aim of the audit trail?
What was the main target to implement a audit trail? Is it primarily for debugging? To see the flow the process instance has taken?
Obviously the audit trail isn't the right way for real time monitoring, right? So maybe you can tell me, why there is an audit trail at all. What was the design decision behind it?
Greetings
Mike

Hi Mike,
While I am certainly not one of the people who designed it, I think I can answer your question.
The audit trail is what the name implies - it keeps track of all the steps preformed by the process instance. It lets you view the instance history, variable content etc. and lets you see the current state of an in flight instance or to be more exact lets you see the last dehydration point. You can minimize the trail data, or even disable it.
BAM however is real time monitoring of business or operational data or KPI. You send data to the BAM engine using sensors, and you only send the data you want to send when you want to send it. IF you don't need real real-time monitoring with all the fantastic visual features, alerts etc. of BAM, you can send the same data to a database or JMS server instead and built your own monitoring.
hth,
~ronen

Questioning design decision in java.lang.Character

Having a look at the source code for java.lang.Character, I have the Character class explicitly extends Object
I am using jre1.6.0_07 on window XP
Now the question is what is the reason for such a decision and we all know that any class implicitly extends Object class.
public final class Character extends Object implements java.io.Serializable, Comparable<Character> {
}Regards,
Alan Mehio
London, UK
Edited by: alan_mehio on 24-Jul-2009 12:31

I cannot answer with anything but personal intuition, and give non-conclusive details:
first this is not a design decision, merely a style decision, since, as you mention, any class implicitly extends directly java.lang.Object if not explicitly extending anything else (and at the bytecode level, the source-level difference is undetectable).
As far as style is concerned, I would have assumed that the whole JDK team is required to strictly follow consistent rules, but different classes suggest otherwise.
Sun's public [Code Conventions for the JavaTM Programming Language|http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc5.html#2991] do not have an explicit rule about this; section +6.4 Class and Interface Declarations+ provide an example with an extends Object clause, but the rule is not explicit in the text; and the previous section 5.2 does provide an example without this clause...
I went on speculating that the developpers for the Character class had a special intent in mind, as they override Object methods equals() and hascode(), but other class in the same package do the same without the explicit extends Object clause (Void, System, Number). At that step I gave up trying to find a reason other than the developers' own style...

HELP !!!!!! Design decision...!!!!!

Hello,
I am in a dilemma of making a design decision . We are developing a business tier component. This is going to talk to webservices on the backend. Right now it is going to integrate with 2 different backend systems through web services. In future it might support more of such backend systems.
And there are clients (web app, xml app) who interface with the component.
Most of the data elements passed over to backend systems is similar for both the systems, but some are different.
Now is it a good design to make 2 different client interfaces for 2 backend systems ? so that ,clients upfront decide which interface to use. This is more cleaner and easier implementation.
Or is it good to have a generic interface, and component then figures out which data to use and to which backend system to talk to.
Please help,
Thanks

There are several patterns that could apply, but the most widly used is probably the MVC (Model View Controller) pattern.
With the pattern the View layer is the front end (in your case this would be the web app / xml app).
The Controller would be your middle tier, this layer is responsible for relaying requests of the View layer to the Model layer.
The Model layer would be your backend webservices.
As said, the controler is responsible for relaying the requests from the view layer to the correct webservice. This means you need to have some way to know how to do this. You can employ several methods to do this.
You could have different methods for the different webservices, this is the most straight forward way.
Or you could look at the provided parameters and decide where you need to go based on that. This is slightly more difficult, but when you have two or more webservices that do almost the same thing, this might be the better way to go.
If you really wanted to make things fancy, you could employt the second method and have the checks be based on rules you configure through a dynamically loaded file, this way, you could (theoratically) build your middle tier in such a way that you can add new front ends / back ends without having to redo the middle tier. This might eventually be the cleanest / best way to go, but it is also the most difficult and takes a lot of planning beforehand.
Mark

SAP BW SRM Workflow data model design

Hi All,
I have a requirement from my client to design SAP BW SRM Work flow report, in output user is interested for document flow/chain starting from Shopping cart (SC) - Bid invitation (RFx) - Bid (RFx responses) - Purchase order (PO) - Confirmation. There are standard datasources and DSO's for the same but I want to check experts ideas on data model design. I am thinking to build infosets on top of DSO's but it will impact Query performance as data volume for sure will be more and will increase down the line. In addition I need to consider below exceptions or restrictions as well:
1. Document may/may not start with SC for example one possibility is document start at SC and end at Confirmation or start at RFx and end at PO etc.
2. User is expected to see below various possibilities of document chain in report output:
SC - RFx - RFx responses - PO - Confirmation or
SC - RFx - RFx responses or
SC - PO - Confirmation or
SC - RFx - RFx responses - PO
SC - RFx or
RFx - RFx responses or
RFx or
RFx - RFx responses - PO or
RFx - RFx responses - PO - Confir or
PO - Confiramtion or
PO
your help and ideas on this is greatly appreciated
Thanks and Regards,
Reddy

Hi All,
Any inputs or ideas on the data model design? Thanks for your help in advance
Regards,
Reddy

Rich Domain Model and Local JNDI Lookups

Hi,
I'm sure this is a problem a lot of other people have come across but there seems to be very little coherent discussion on the issue, so I'd very much appreciate any views people might have on the matter.
The problem is whether or not you compromise your object-oriented principles and stick with the field or method level EJB dependency injection annotations, a procedural programming style, and a weak domain-model; or, strive for a richer domain model with a sub-optimal JDNI lookup solution.
Take adding an item to simple shopping cart as an example.
@Stateful
public class CartBean implements Cart {
@EJB
private ProductManagerLocal productManager;
@EJB
private PricingServiceLocal pricingService;
private Order order;
public void addItem(final int productId) {
    if (order.containsLineItem(productId) {
      order.addQuantity(productId, 1);
    } else {
      final Product product = productManager.getProduct(productId);
      final Price price = pricingService.getPrice(productId);
      order.createLineItem(product, price);
}The code above makes Cart dependent on Product and Price, when in reality Cart only cares about Order. The logic in the addItem() method should really be in the Order object on the basis Order is the information expert, but because Order is a POJO you can't inject the necessary EJB references. What's more, because the EJB interfaces are local they don't have a JNDI name assigned in the same way a remote one would.
To perform a portable lookup of the required EJBs from within an instance of the Order class, the method must be invoked by a component with the required EJB references in its private namespace. See https://glassfish.dev.java.net/javaee5/ejb/EJB_FAQ.html#POJOLocalEJB. This makes for a very brittle solution with no compile time checks whatsoever.
The problem seems to have been addressed in EJB 3.1 as the proposal for portable global JNDI names also applies to session beans exposing local only interfaces. See http://blogs.sun.com/kensaks/entry/portable_global_jndi_names.
There seems to be very little guidance from Sun on this matter; ALL the examples in the JEE 5 Tutorial follow the anaemic domain model approach with business objects presented as little more than dumb placeholders for persistent data.
What are people's thoughts on this? When it comes to EJB do we simply have to accept that local service lookups from POJOs aren't that robust and go with a procedural programming style, or should we be implementing a local service locator to facilitate domain objects taking on appropriate responsibilities via access to local stateless session beans / services?

Hi,
I'm sure this is a problem a lot of other people have come across but there seems to be very little coherent discussion on the issue, so I'd very much appreciate any views people might have on the matter.
The problem is whether or not you compromise your object-oriented principles and stick with the field or method level EJB dependency injection annotations, a procedural programming style, and a weak domain-model; or, strive for a richer domain model with a sub-optimal JDNI lookup solution.
Take adding an item to simple shopping cart as an example.
@Stateful
public class CartBean implements Cart {
@EJB
private ProductManagerLocal productManager;
@EJB
private PricingServiceLocal pricingService;
private Order order;
public void addItem(final int productId) {
    if (order.containsLineItem(productId) {
      order.addQuantity(productId, 1);
    } else {
      final Product product = productManager.getProduct(productId);
      final Price price = pricingService.getPrice(productId);
      order.createLineItem(product, price);
}The code above makes Cart dependent on Product and Price, when in reality Cart only cares about Order. The logic in the addItem() method should really be in the Order object on the basis Order is the information expert, but because Order is a POJO you can't inject the necessary EJB references. What's more, because the EJB interfaces are local they don't have a JNDI name assigned in the same way a remote one would.
To perform a portable lookup of the required EJBs from within an instance of the Order class, the method must be invoked by a component with the required EJB references in its private namespace. See https://glassfish.dev.java.net/javaee5/ejb/EJB_FAQ.html#POJOLocalEJB. This makes for a very brittle solution with no compile time checks whatsoever.
The problem seems to have been addressed in EJB 3.1 as the proposal for portable global JNDI names also applies to session beans exposing local only interfaces. See http://blogs.sun.com/kensaks/entry/portable_global_jndi_names.
There seems to be very little guidance from Sun on this matter; ALL the examples in the JEE 5 Tutorial follow the anaemic domain model approach with business objects presented as little more than dumb placeholders for persistent data.
What are people's thoughts on this? When it comes to EJB do we simply have to accept that local service lookups from POJOs aren't that robust and go with a procedural programming style, or should we be implementing a local service locator to facilitate domain objects taking on appropriate responsibilities via access to local stateless session beans / services?

Pls tell me how I can convert a PDF form to a Word doc, and have radio buttons etc work?

Pls tell me how I can convert a PDF form to a Word doc, and have radio buttons etc work? My PDF form did convert using Adobe PDF Export.... but the formatting is a schamozzle if I try to do anything with it. Most importantly, I need the check boxes and radio buttons to work in Word!

Checkboxes and radio buttons are form objects from Acrobat. There is no equivalent for these objects, with the way they were constructed, within Word.
I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
David

How to save data model design in pdf or any format..?

how to save data model design in pdf or any format..?
i ve created design but not able to save it any mage or pdf format

File -> Print Diagram -> To PDF File

JPA Arhitectural Design Decision

Hi,
I'm building a 1 tier web shop, using mostly Ajax, Servlets and JPA and I need your advice on a design decision.
When a user demands to see the products belonging to a particular category of products, my DAO object returns to the servlet a java.util.List<Product>, where Product is a JPA entity. In the servlet class I "manually" create the Ajax XML response, the user gets to see the products, everything is nice and great.
I am not happy with the fact that the list of products remains detached in the servlet class, sort of say, and when another user demands to see the same products another list gets greated. These are objects that have method scope, but still they are on the stack, right? For 100 users who want to see 100 products each, the no. of objects created could cause the application to have a slower reponse time.
So my question is about the design of the application.
I obtain the list of products in the servlet class and construct the XML response. Right before sending the response, should I pass the list of products back to the DAO, and ask the EntityManager to merge the products? Will this reduce the no. of objects my application creates? Shouldn't I do this because I'm merging entities that have not been changed and the merge operation is time consuming?
Should I not pass back the products to the DAO and set each product in the list to reference null and call System.gc() ?
Keeping in mind, that my main concern is application response time, not reduced development time, are there any other suggestions you can make?

first of all, a merge is only used to synchronize a changed entity that is not managed by an entity manager with the database. Why did you even come to the conclusion that you might need this?
No you don't nullify the entities in the list. You let the entire list go when you are done with it. Manually nullifying can hinder the garbage collector, just don't do it unless you have a very good reason for doing so.
Your main problem seems to be that you don't like the fact that you are fetching 100 objects for both users, putting duplicate objects in memory on the server. Are you sure this is a problem? You shouldn't be thinking about optimizations while you are still developing you know. I would wait until you are done, then profile the application to see where bottlenecks are; if fetching those 100 products turns out to take a lot of system resources, THEN optimize it.
You may want to look into caching. If for example under water you use Hibernate as the persistence provider, search for "hibernate cache" using google.

Process modelling : Design patterns & Best Practices

Hi
Could some one please suggest/share any technical information or documents tha's related to 'Process modelling - Design Patterns & Best Practices'
Thanks in Advance
Santosh K.
Edited by: Santosh539 on Jul 29, 2010 4:07 PM

Hi Santosh,
There is no specific site with all the information you asked for.
But I think these links would be helpful...
on Work Flow Patterns: http://www.workflowpatterns.com/
on BPM Service Pattern: http://enterprisearchitecture.nih.gov/ArchLib/AT/TA/WorkflowServicePattern.htm
HTH
Sharma

Error when implementing JPA domain model in separate JAR module

Hi,
I'm using JPA/TopLink Essentials to implement my domain model and services. From an architectural viewpoint I want to implement this as seperate Java project, while my View/Controller is implemented in another Java project. This last project has a dependency on the Model project. Deployment on an OC4J 10.1.3 is ok, but when I use a JSP, I get the following error. (Note that directly implementing my JPA classes in the View/Controller project does not give any errors.)
Thanx, Ronald
java.lang.NullPointerException     at oracle.toplink.essentials.ejb.cmp3.persistence.ArchiveFactoryImpl.createArchive(ArchiveFactoryImpl.java:64)     at oracle.toplink.essentials.ejb.cmp3.persistence.PersistenceUnitProcessor.findPersistenceArchives(PersistenceUnitProcessor.java:227)     at oracle.toplink.essentials.ejb.cmp3.persistence.PersistenceUnitProcessor.findPersistenceArchives(PersistenceUnitProcessor.java:210)     at oracle.toplink.essentials.internal.ejb.cmp3.JavaSECMPInitializer.initialize(JavaSECMPInitializer.java:239)     at oracle.toplink.essentials.internal.ejb.cmp3.JavaSECMPInitializer.initializeFromMain(JavaSECMPInitializer.java:278)     at oracle.toplink.essentials.internal.ejb.cmp3.JavaSECMPInitializer.getJavaSECMPInitializer(JavaSECMPInitializer.java:81)     at oracle.toplink.essentials.ejb.cmp3.EntityManagerFactoryProvider.createEntityManagerFactory(EntityManagerFactoryProvider.java:119)     at javax.persistence.Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory(Persistence.java:83)     at com.trfsol.model.JPAResourceBean.getEMF(JPAResourceBean.java:23)     at com.trfsol.model.Service.getEmp(Service.java:28)     at com.trfsol.JPAServlet.doGet(JPAServlet.java:24)     at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:743)     at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:856)     at com.evermind[Oracle Containers for J2EE 10g (10.1.3.0.0) ].server.http.ServletRequestDispatcher.invoke(ServletRequestDispatcher.java:719)     at com.evermind[Oracle Containers for J2EE 10g (10.1.3.0.0) ].server.http.ServletRequestDispatcher.forwardInternal(ServletRequestDispatcher.java:376)     at com.evermind[Oracle Containers for J2EE 10g (10.1.3.0.0) ].server.http.HttpRequestHandler.doProcessRequest(HttpRequestHandler.java:870)     at com.evermind[Oracle Containers for J2EE 10g (10.1.3.0.0) ].server.http.HttpRequestHandler.processRequest(HttpRequestHandler.java:451)     at com.evermind[Oracle Containers for J2EE 10g (10.1.3.0.0) ].server.http.HttpRequestHandler.serveOneRequest(HttpRequestHandler.java:218)     at com.evermind[Oracle Containers for J2EE 10g (10.1.3.0.0) ].server.http.HttpRequestHandler.run(HttpRequestHandler.java:119)     at com.evermind[Oracle Containers for J2EE 10g (10.1.3.0.0) ].server.http.HttpRequestHandler.run(HttpRequestHandler.java:112)     at oracle.oc4j.network.ServerSocketReadHandler$SafeRunnable.run(ServerSocketReadHandler.java:260)     at com.evermind[Oracle Containers for J2EE 10g (10.1.3.0.0) ].util.ReleasableResourcePooledExecutor$MyWorker.run(ReleasableResourcePooledExecutor.java:303)     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:595)

Servlet class:
     protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException {
          Collection<Emp> emps = new Service().getEmp();
          for (Emp emp : emps) {
               System.out.println("Emp " + emp.getEname());
In which the Service class comes from the Model project.
Service class:
public EntityManagerFactory getEMF () {
if (emf == null) {
emf = Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("default", new java.util.HashMap());
return emf;
public Collection<Emp> getEmp(){
EntityManagerFactory emf = getE
EntityManager em = emf.createEntityManager();
try{
Collection<Emp> result = em.createNamedQuery("findAllEmps").getResultList();
return result;
finally{
em.close();
Persistence.xml (in the META-INF dir of the Model project)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<persistence xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence persistence_1_0.xsd" version="1.0">
<persistence-unit name="default" transaction-type="RESOURCE_LOCAL">
<provider>
oracle.toplink.essentials.PersistenceProvider
</provider>
<class>com.trfsol.Dept</class>
<class>com.trfsol.Emp</class>
<properties>
<property name="toplink.logging.level" value="FINE"/>
<property name="toplink.jdbc.driver" value="oracle.jdbc.OracleDriver"/>
<property name="toplink.jdbc.url" value="jdbc:oracle:thin:@localhost:1521:ORCL"/>
<property name="toplink.jdbc.password" value="tiger"/>
<property name="toplink.jdbc.user" value="scott"/>
</properties>
</persistence-unit>
</persistence>
Regards, Ronald

Problem in workflow sending mails to external domains like yahoo,gmail etc.

hi
i have one probs in my workflow that when i am sending mail to an external id it is not going to gmail,yahoo or hotmail etc.
it is being send to a particular domain say XYZ
but outside it ,no mail is send
and error is coming that recepient is unknown
we have firewalls being placed on smtp
and each and every setting in SCOT has been checked thorughly
but still mail except to one domain is not going outside
i have came across the info that since SAP doesn have any user id authentication but SMTP does has ,so when mail is being send outside the mail sending is failed,one option could be to disable the authentication at SMTP but thats doesn come inside the policy of client
so i think there must be a way out in SAP to deal with this
please suggest how can i send the mails externally,i ahve checked each and every thing inside my SMTP configuration ,adress is defined as * here but still mail is being send to internal domain of the client in which i am working ,but not at all to the external domains like gmail,yahoo etc.
any help will be highly appreciated
best regards
ashish

Hi Ashish,
I think you will need to check with your exchange guys because probably the exchange server will not relay the messages form the SAP server to external e-mail domains.
Regards,
Martin

PetStore doc, domain model, design decisions, etc

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for