Hi,
We have our custom application that we have tested and developed against Tomcat 5, using the hibernate and the hibernate JPA provider. It works perfectly under Tomcat 5. We need to port our application to work on Netweaver CE 7.1.
An earlier version of our application ran on Netweaver 7.0, and we had to enable the heavy loading by following the information in the following two links to get hibernate working properly on 7.1.
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nwce10/helpdata/en/46/b902f8d0b22880e10000000a155369/content.htm
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/6447
I have also followed the above for our latest version which uses JPA, but during deployment I get the following error:
Description:
+ 1. [ERROR CODE DPL.DS.5402] JLinEE reported following erros for sap.com/Manifest application.+
ERRORS:
* ORPersistence Model Builder: Exception occurred: com.sap.engine.services.orpersistence.model.ormappingmodel.ORMException: Annotated method 'addEquipmentIdentification' of class 'com.tatis.core.declaration.model.ConsignmentItem' does not conform to getter method name requirements at com.sap.engine.services.orpersistence.model.ormappingmodel.impl.ORMUtils.stripPrefix(ORMUtils.java:1619), file: n/a, column 0, line 0, severity: error
Hint: 1) Given application file is not valid one.
This is a utility method annotated with '@Transient' and therefore should be ignored
@Transient
public void addEquipmentIdentification(EquipmentIdentification value ) {
value.setConsignmentItem(this);
getEquipmentIdentifications().add(value);
}
So if I understand it correctly heavy loading wont help right now, since the application isn't running yet, and these check are being done during deployment. But heavy loading will help as soon as the application is deployed and started up.
The application is stored in an WAR file that is packaged within an EAR file that contains the lib folder for the heavy loading and the other required deployment descriptors.
Is there any way to force the hibernate JPA to be in effect during deployment so that this check doesnt fail, or some other way to bypass it?
Any help will be appreciated.
Edited by: Johann Muller on Nov 26, 2008 10:37 AM
Edited by: Johann Muller on Nov 26, 2008 3:35 PM