BrowseAll ecosystems
Everything in the atlas
5 of 2341
Domain
Signals
Content: Undated
More: 4
Group by: Capability
Source capireSource SAP CommunitySource Heliconia LabsSource SAP Architecture CenterPublished UndatedClear all
EntryBySignalsLast activity
Model Context Protocol Adapter — CAP guideModel Context Protocol Adapter — CAP guideDocuments @cap-js/mcp and com.sap.cds:cds-adapter-mcp, service annotations, generated describe/query/call tools and local client setup. The guide records Java doc-comment configuration, unbound-action-based data changes, incomplete XSUAA PKCE support and the adapter’s governance boundaries.
Third-Party MCP Server Access to SAP Solutions on BTPThird-Party MCP Server Access to SAP Solutions on BTPDescribes external MCP servers and custom servers on BTP, assigning their operators responsibility for authentication, scoped identity, API limits, logging and lifecycle. The permitted use remains conditional on the SAP API Policy, while SAP Integration Suite and Joule Studio are described as SAP-provided paths. Hosting a server on BTP does not automatically supply its governance controls.Dhawal Joshi, Harut Ter-Minasyan, Mirko Günther
The Full Picture: Federating, Replicating, and Caching Remote Data in CAP — Part 1The Full Picture: Federating, Replicating, and Caching Remote Data in CAP — Part 1Part one of two, and the concepts half: terminology, what CAP already does, and what a project still has to write. It fixes a vocabulary — federation is the umbrella for making remote data part of your model, delegation forwards each request to the remote at query time, replication is a scheduled copy into the local database, and caching is an option on either rather than a third strategy — which collides with CAP's own, since what this series calls replication is what the CAP-level Data Federation guide calls federation. From the ground the Service Integration guide covers, it lists what is left to hand-write: cross-service $expand, navigation filters across the boundary, write forwarding, timeouts and retries, then scheduling, delta detection, backoff, a guard for two app instances sharing one schedule, idempotent writes, and knowing whether the last run succeeded. That list is why the edge to cds-data-federation holds: the second half maps it onto @federation.delegate and @federation.replicate and says which package carries which part — annotations in cds-data-federation, the scheduled engine in cds-data-pipeline, response caching through cds-caching — so it is the design rationale for the annotations, not the API reference. The gap list and the plugins answering it come from the same person who maintains them; cap-replication-demo and SAP's xtravels sample are cited as the hand-written form of the same work. Part 2 is announced as a walkthrough of a demo application and is not covered here.
Agentic Engineering for SAP BTP ExtensionsAgentic Engineering for SAP BTP ExtensionsAn agent harness coordinates code generation across isolated Git worktrees, using a skills registry, SAP CAP MCP Server, Fiori MCP Server and UI5 Web Components MCP Server for development context. The diagram shows LiteLLM as a model proxy in front of SAP AI Core, while automated checks and review gate the generated changes. The worked scenario is CAP-based extensions on BTP, with specifications written before generation and reusable skills governed across teams.
Patterns for using LLMs in ABAP developmentPatterns for using LLMs in ABAP developmentLars Hvam compares eight ABAP development setups: assistance in SE80 or Eclipse, virtual files and MCP over ADT, a centrally managed MCP service, sandboxes, local Git, Git with read-only system context, and temporary ABAP systems for development and CI. The overview describes where source changes, review and system access happen, including abapGit synchronization and abaplint checks. It is dated March 2026; its risk, cost and autonomy ratings are the writer’s assessments.
Agentic Engineering for SAP BTP ExtensionsAgentic Engineering for SAP BTP ExtensionsAn agent harness coordinates code generation across isolated Git worktrees, using a skills registry, SAP CAP MCP Server, Fiori MCP Server and UI5 Web Components MCP Server for development context. The diagram shows LiteLLM as a model proxy in front of SAP AI Core, while automated checks and review gate the generated changes. The worked scenario is CAP-based extensions on BTP, with specifications written before generation and reusable skills governed across teams.
Agentic Engineering for SAP BTP ExtensionsAgentic Engineering for SAP BTP ExtensionsAn agent harness coordinates code generation across isolated Git worktrees, using a skills registry, SAP CAP MCP Server, Fiori MCP Server and UI5 Web Components MCP Server for development context. The diagram shows LiteLLM as a model proxy in front of SAP AI Core, while automated checks and review gate the generated changes. The worked scenario is CAP-based extensions on BTP, with specifications written before generation and reusable skills governed across teams.
Third-Party MCP Server Access to SAP Solutions on BTPThird-Party MCP Server Access to SAP Solutions on BTPDescribes external MCP servers and custom servers on BTP, assigning their operators responsibility for authentication, scoped identity, API limits, logging and lifecycle. The permitted use remains conditional on the SAP API Policy, while SAP Integration Suite and Joule Studio are described as SAP-provided paths. Hosting a server on BTP does not automatically supply its governance controls.Dhawal Joshi, Harut Ter-Minasyan, Mirko Günther
Third-Party MCP Server Access to SAP Solutions on BTPThird-Party MCP Server Access to SAP Solutions on BTPDescribes external MCP servers and custom servers on BTP, assigning their operators responsibility for authentication, scoped identity, API limits, logging and lifecycle. The permitted use remains conditional on the SAP API Policy, while SAP Integration Suite and Joule Studio are described as SAP-provided paths. Hosting a server on BTP does not automatically supply its governance controls.Dhawal Joshi, Harut Ter-Minasyan, Mirko Günther
Patterns for using LLMs in ABAP developmentPatterns for using LLMs in ABAP developmentLars Hvam compares eight ABAP development setups: assistance in SE80 or Eclipse, virtual files and MCP over ADT, a centrally managed MCP service, sandboxes, local Git, Git with read-only system context, and temporary ABAP systems for development and CI. The overview describes where source changes, review and system access happen, including abapGit synchronization and abaplint checks. It is dated March 2026; its risk, cost and autonomy ratings are the writer’s assessments.
Patterns for using LLMs in ABAP developmentPatterns for using LLMs in ABAP developmentLars Hvam compares eight ABAP development setups: assistance in SE80 or Eclipse, virtual files and MCP over ADT, a centrally managed MCP service, sandboxes, local Git, Git with read-only system context, and temporary ABAP systems for development and CI. The overview describes where source changes, review and system access happen, including abapGit synchronization and abaplint checks. It is dated March 2026; its risk, cost and autonomy ratings are the writer’s assessments.
Patterns for using LLMs in ABAP developmentPatterns for using LLMs in ABAP developmentLars Hvam compares eight ABAP development setups: assistance in SE80 or Eclipse, virtual files and MCP over ADT, a centrally managed MCP service, sandboxes, local Git, Git with read-only system context, and temporary ABAP systems for development and CI. The overview describes where source changes, review and system access happen, including abapGit synchronization and abaplint checks. It is dated March 2026; its risk, cost and autonomy ratings are the writer’s assessments.