Skip to Content
avatar image
Former Member

Connection problem with saplogon.ini

Hi,

There seems to be a problem with the RFC SDK (and I assume therefore .NET connector too) whereby an attempt to connect to an SAP system by supplying the saplogon ID will fail if there are blank description entries in the saplogon.ini file.

For example, suppose my saplogon.ini file contains entries like:

[Description]

Item1=Development

Item2=Test

If I establish an RFC connection using SAP logon ID "Development" it will work, provided the logon details are correct. However if the saplogon.ini file contains entries like those that follow, then the connection attempt will fail.

[Description]

Item1=

Item2=Development

Item3=Test

The RFC SDK seems to get thrown by the blank item description and returns indicating that the saplogon entry for "Development" cannot be found.

I'm not actually using .NET connector, but rather the SDK function RfcOpenEx directly, however I imagine the problem should exist for both. Can anyone using the .NET connector confirm whether this problem exists there too?

Regards,

Scott

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Follow
  • Get RSS Feed

2 Answers

  • Apr 28, 2004 at 03:03 PM

    Hi Scott,

    the .NET Connector has it's own SAPLOGON.INI parsing in SAPLogonDestination class. So it's unlikely that a user of SAP .NET Connector encounters the problem.

    Message was edited by: Reiner Hille-Doering

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • avatar image
    Former Member
    Apr 28, 2004 at 03:29 PM

    Hi,

    The .NET Connector has no problem with this situation because the connector reads and inteprets saplogon.ini by itself without using the RFC library function.

    Regards,

    Guangwei

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Former Member

      Out of curiosity, why was the decision to extract info from the saplogon.ini file made, rather than just having the RFC library do it?

      From my perspective, it really doesn't matter either way, but it seems strange for SAP to have code doing the same thing in two different places. Perhaps that functionality just wasn't available at the time?

      Cheers,

      Scott