.NET Core项目中的SAP RFC（Remote Function Call）调用涉及到了多个关键组件和技术，这些组件协同工作以使得.NET Core应用程序能够与SAP系统进行通信。本文将深入探讨这些必要的组件和实现过程。 让我们了解RFC。RFC是SAP提供的一种标准接口，允许外部系统与SAP系统进行数据交换。通过RFC，非SAP应用可以调用SAP的功能模块，执行业务逻辑，获取或更新数据。 在.NET Core项目中，进行SAP RFC调用的核心组件是SAP NetWeaver RFC Library（NW RFC Library）。这个库是SAP官方提供的，用于非SAP环境与SAP系统交互的SDK。在我们的案例中，文件"nwrfc750P_6-7000"很可能就是该库的一个版本，适用于.NET Core平台。此库提供了C#接口，使得.NET Core开发者可以方便地在代码中创建RFC连接、调用函数和处理结果。 要开始使用SAP NW RFC Library，开发者需要完成以下步骤： 1. **安装库**：将"nwrfc750P_6-7000"库添加到.NET Core项目的依赖中。这通常通过NuGet包管理器或者手动复制库文件到项目目录并引用完成。 2. **建立连接**：使用库提供的API创建一个RFC连接对象，设置SAP系统的连接参数，如系统ID、用户名、密码、主机名和端口。 3. **认证**：SAP系统可能需要额外的认证，如X.509证书或SNC（Secure Network Communication）安全认证。确保正确配置这些参数以成功连接。 4. **调用RFC函数**：通过RFC连接对象，开发者可以查找和调用SAP系统中的特定RFC函数模块。每个RFC函数模块都有唯一的名称（如BAPI_USER_GET_DETAIL），并在调用时传入参数。 5. **处理结果**：函数调用完成后，接收返回的数据并进行处理。这可能包括解析结构化数据、处理错误信息等。 6. **关闭连接**：在完成所有操作后，记得关闭RFC连接，释放资源。 除了上述基本流程，还有其他技术点需要注意： - **异常处理**：SAP RFC调用可能出现各种异常，如网络问题、认证失败或函数调用错误。编写健壮的异常处理代码来确保程序的稳定运行。 - **事务处理**：如果多个RFC调用需要在一个事务中执行，需要考虑如何管理和提交SAP事务。 - **性能优化**：大量或频繁的RFC调用可能影响性能。考虑批量处理、缓存结果或使用更高效的通信方式（如ABAP Worker进程）来优化。 - **测试与调试**：使用SAP提供的工具，如SE37（Function Builder）进行RFC函数测试，确保它们在SAP系统内正常工作。同时，利用.NET Core的调试工具进行代码调试。 .NET Core项目中的SAP RFC调用涉及到对SAP NW RFC Library的熟练运用，以及对SAP系统功能模块的深刻理解。正确配置和使用这些组件，开发者可以构建出高效、可靠的跨平台SAP集成解决方案。

Java在Linux环境中调用SAP RFC接口涉及到的关键技术点包括Java与SAP的集成、Linux系统下的动态链接库（.so文件）以及SAP的RFC（远程功能调用）技术。这里将详细介绍这些知识点。 SAP RFC是SAP提供的一种通信协议，允许外部系统与SAP系统进行交互。RFC基于请求-响应模型，允许应用程序调用SAP系统中的函数模块，执行业务逻辑，并接收返回的数据。这对于集成SAP系统与其他非SAP系统至关重要。 在Java中调用SAP RFC，我们需要使用SAP Java Connector (JCo)。JCo是SAP官方提供的一个Java库，它提供了一组API，使得Java开发者可以方便地访问SAP系统。在本例中，`libsapjco3.so`是SAP JCo的动态链接库文件，它是Java连接SAP系统的核心组件。这个库文件在Java程序运行时需要被加载，以便Java代码能够通过JNI（Java Native Interface）调用底层的C/C++实现，从而与SAP系统通信。 在Linux环境下，为了使Java程序能够找到并使用`libsapjco3.so`，我们需要进行以下配置： 1. 将`libsapjco3.so`文件放置到系统的动态库路径中，如`/usr/lib64`或`/usr/lib`（取决于你的系统架构），或者将该文件复制到Java应用的类路径下。 2. 如果不希望将库文件放在标准路径，可以通过设置环境变量`LD_LIBRARY_PATH`来指定库文件的搜索路径，例如：`export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:/path/to/libsapjco3.so`。 3. 在Java代码中，确保正确加载了SAP JCo库，通常通过`System.loadLibrary()`方法实现。 在配置过程中，可能会遇到各种问题，如权限问题、版本兼容性、依赖库缺失等。提供的图片文件"Linux环境下配置Sap及遇到的问题1.jpg"和"Linux环境下配置Sap及遇到的问题2.jpg"可能包含了具体的解决步骤或错误示例，建议查看这些文件以获取更详细的信息。 此外，"Linux链接RFC.jpg"可能展示了一个实际的RFC连接示例，这可能包括服务器配置、用户认证、RFC函数模块的选择等关键步骤。 Java在Linux上调用SAP RFC接口是一个涉及多方面技术的复杂过程，包括Java的本地接口、Linux的动态链接库管理以及SAP的RFC通信协议。正确配置和使用`libsapjco3.so`是确保Java程序能够成功连接和通信SAP系统的关键。在实际操作中，应仔细阅读SAP的官方文档，遵循最佳实践，并及时解决配置和运行时可能出现的问题。

WebSocket是网络通信协议的一种，它提供了全双工、低延迟的通信方式，使得客户端和服务器之间可以进行持续的双向数据传输。在标题中提到的"WebSocket：Qt5（C++）的轻量级RFC 6455（Web套接字）实现"，指的是使用Qt5库中的C++接口来实现WebSocket协议，该实现遵循了RFC 6455规范，确保了与标准的兼容性。 让我们了解一下WebSocket的基本概念。WebSocket协议是在HTTP/1.1协议的基础上发展起来的，它通过TCP连接提供持久化的双向通信。RFC 6455是WebSocket的官方规范，定义了其握手过程、帧格式以及错误处理机制。与HTTP不同，WebSocket连接一旦建立，就不再需要每次发送数据时都进行完整的请求-响应周期，大大降低了延迟。 Qt5是一个跨平台的应用程序开发框架，由Qt公司开发，支持Windows、Linux、macOS等操作系统。Qt5提供了丰富的C++库，包括对网络通信的支持，其中`QWebSocket`类就是专门为实现WebSocket通信而设计的。使用`QWebSocket`，开发者可以方便地在Qt应用程序中集成WebSocket功能。 `QWebSocket`类的使用主要包括以下几个步骤： 1. **初始化**：创建`QWebSocket`对象，通常需要提供服务器的WebSocket URI（如`ws://example.com/ws`或`wss://example.com/ws`，`wss`表示加密的WebSocket连接）。 2. **连接建立**：调用`connectToServer()`函数尝试与服务器建立连接。这会触发相应的信号，如`connected()`，表明连接成功；如果连接失败，会有`disconnected()`信号发出。 3. **握手**：WebSocket连接建立后，客户端和服务器会交换HTTP升级请求和响应，完成WebSocket握手。这个过程由`QWebSocket`自动处理。 4. **数据传输**：使用`sendTextMessage()`或`sendBinaryMessage()`方法发送文本或二进制数据。同时，可以通过重载`newTextFrame()`或`newBinaryFrame()`函数来自定义帧的格式。 5. **接收数据**：注册槽函数监听`textMessageReceived()`和`binaryMessageReceived()`信号，当接收到消息时，这些信号会被触发，传递接收到的数据。 6. **关闭连接**：当通信结束时，调用`close()`方法关闭WebSocket连接。 在QtC++中，`QWebSocket`还提供了异常处理、心跳检测、多线程支持等功能，以确保稳定和安全的通信。开发者可以根据需求自定义连接超时、错误处理以及数据编码解码等行为。 使用Qt5的`QWebSocket`类，开发者可以轻松地在C++应用中构建WebSocket客户端，实现与WebSocket服务器的高效交互。无论是实时聊天、在线游戏还是物联网设备控制，WebSocket都能提供强大的通信能力。结合Qt5的其他功能，如图形界面、多平台支持等，可以构建出功能强大、性能优异的应用程序。

SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK是一个开发工具包，专为与SAP系统进行远程功能调用（Remote Function Call，简称RFC）而设计。RFC是SAP系统之间通信的一种标准方式，允许非SAP系统或者SAP系统之间通过程序接口进行数据交换和功能调用。开发者可以利用SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK提供的工具、库和文档来创建、测试和部署与SAP应用服务器交互的客户程序。 SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK支持多种操作系统平台，包括但不限于UNIX、Linux和Windows。这意味着开发者可以为不同的企业环境定制解决方案，确保与SAP系统的兼容性。SDK中通常包括了必要的库文件、接口定义文件、示例程序以及开发指导文档。这些组件对于理解如何通过RFC集成SAP应用和非SAP应用至关重要。 SAP NetWeaver是SAP的一个重要产品线，主要负责集成不同的SAP组件，例如ERP、CRM、BW等，它提供了一个全面的服务导向架构（Service Oriented Architecture，SOA），从而让不同系统之间可以灵活地进行通信和数据交换。使用SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK，开发者能够有效地构建和部署这些集成解决方案。 SDK中通常包括的组件有：RFC开发库（包括静态和动态链接库）、接口描述语言文件（.h文件），这些文件描述了SAP系统中可以调用的函数接口，以及与之相关的开发辅助工具。通过这些组件，开发者可以方便地创建出能够通过网络调用SAP系统内部函数的应用程序。 对于希望集成SAP系统的企业而言，SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK是一个关键的工具，因为它提供了一种标准和高效的方式来实现应用程序之间的集成。它允许在不同的系统之间无缝地共享数据和执行业务逻辑，从而帮助企业实现流程自动化和优化。 SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK是构建企业级解决方案的一个强大工具，它帮助开发者在不同的系统环境之间，包括跨操作系统的环境下，实现高效的系统集成和数据交换。这一工具包的使用大大简化了与SAP系统交互的复杂性，使得开发者能够专注于业务逻辑的实现和解决方案的创新。

SapNwRfc 的依赖 包含windows和linux 操作系统

rfc 3550

1、.NET CORE项目SAP的RFC调用所需的SAP组件。 .2、NET CORE调用RFC需要使用SapNwRfc，开发环境需要SAP NetWeaver RFC Library 7.50 SDK引用。 2.1、SapNwRfc使用请参考：https://github.com/huysentruitw/SapNwRfc 2.2、SAP NetWeaver RFC Library 7.50 SDK包括Window和Linux

rfc是网络协义的重要学习资源，为方便大家查看，特收藏整理如下。下面是其中一篇内容： Network Working Group Steve Crocker Request for Comments: 1 UCLA 7 April 1969 Title: Host Software Author: Steve Crocker Installation: UCLA Date: 7 April 1969 Network Working Group Request for Comment: 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. A Summary of the IMP Software Messages Links IMP Transmission and Error Checking Open Questions on the IMP Software II. Some Requirements Upon the Host-to-Host Software Simple Use Deep Use Error Checking III. The Host Software Establishment of a Connection High Volume Transmission A Summary of Primitives Error Checking Closer Interaction Open Questions Crocker [Page 1] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 IV. Initial Experiments Experiment One Experiment Two Introduction The software for the ARPA Network exists partly in the IMPs and partly in the respective HOSTs. BB&N has specified the software of the IMPs and it is the responsibility of the HOST groups to agree on HOST software. During the summer of 1968, representatives from the initial four sites met several times to discuss the HOST software and initial experiments on the network. There emerged from these meetings a working group of three, Steve Carr from Utah, Jeff Rulifson from SRI, and Steve Crocker of UCLA, who met during the fall and winter. The most recent meeting was in the last week of March in Utah. Also present was Bill Duvall of SRI who has recently started working with Jeff Rulifson. Somewhat independently, Gerard DeLoche of UCLA has been working on the HOST-IMP interface. I present here some of the tentative agreements reached and some of the open questions encountered. Very little of what is here is firm and reactions are expected. I. A Summary of the IMP Software Messages Information is transmitted from HOST to HOST in bundles called messages. A message is any stream of not more than 8080 bits, together with its header. The header is 16 bits and contains the following information: Destination 5 bits Link 8 bits Trace 1 bit Spare 2 bits The destination is the numerical code for the HOST to which the message should be sent. The trace bit signals the IMPs to record status information about the message and send the information back to the NMC (Network Measurement Center, i.e., UCLA). The spare bits are unused. Crocker [Page 2] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 Links The link field is a special device used by the IMPs to limit certain kinds of congestion. They function as follows. Between every pair of HOSTs there are 32 logical full-duplex connections over which messages may be passed in either direction. The IMPs place the restriction on these links that no HOST can send two successive messages over the same link before the IMP at the destination has sent back a special message called an RFNM (Request for Next Message). This arrangement limits the congestion one HOST can cause another if the sending HOST is attempting to send too much over one link. We note, however, that since the IMP at the destination does not have enough capacity to handle all 32 links simultaneously, the links serve their purpose only if the overload is coming from one or two links. It is necessary for the HOSTs to cooperate in this respect. The links have the following primitive characteristics. They are always functioning and there are always 32 of them. By "always functioning," we mean that the IMPs are always prepared to transmit another message over them. No notion of beginning or ending a conversation is contained in the IMP software. It is thus not possible to query an IMP about the state of a link (although it might be possible to query an IMP about the recent history of a link -- quite a different matter!). The other primitive characteristic of the links is that there are always 32 of them, whether they are in use or not. This means that each IMP must maintain 18 tables, each with 32 entries, regardless of the actual traffic. The objections to the link structure notwithstanding, the links are easily programmed within the IMPs and are probably a better alternative to more complex arrangements just because of their simplicity. IMP Transmission and Error Checking After receiving a message from a HOST, an IMP partitions the message into one or more packets. Packets are not more than 1010 bits long and are the unit of data transmission from IMP to IMP. A 24 bit cyclic checksum is computed by the transmission hardware and is appended to an outgoing packet. The checksum is recomputed by the receiving hardware and is checked against the transmitted checksum. Packets are reassembled into messages at the destination IMP. Open Questions on the IMP Software Crocker [Page 3] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 1. An 8 bit field is provided for link specification, but only 32 links are provided, why? 2. The HOST is supposed to be able to send messages to its IMP. How does it do this? 3. Can a HOST, as opposed to its IMP, control RFNMs? 4. Will the IMPs perform code conversion? How is it to be controlled? II. Some Requirements Upon the Host-to-Host Software Simple Use As with any new facility, there will be a period of very light usage until the community of users experiments with the network and begins to depend upon it. One of our goals must be to stimulate the immediate and easy use by a wide class of users. With this goal, it seems natural to provide the ability to use any remote HOST as if it had been dialed up from a TTY (teletype) terminal. Additionally, we would like some ability to transmit a file in a somewhat different manner perhaps than simulating a teletype. Deep Use One of the inherent problems in the network is the fact that all responses from a remote HOST will require on the order of a half-second or so, no matter how simple. For teletype use, we could shift to a half-duplex local-echo arrangement, but this would destroy some of the usefulness of the network. The 940 Systems, for example, have a very specialized echo. When we consider using graphics stations or other sophisticated terminals under the control of a remote HOST, the problem becomes more severe. We must look for some method which allows us to use our most sophisticated equipment as much as possible as if we were connected directly to the remote computer. Error Checking The point is made by Jeff Rulifson at SRI that error checking at major software interfaces is always a good thing. He points to some experience at SRI where it has saved much dispute and wasted effort. On these grounds, we would like to see some HOST to HOST checking. Besides checking the software interface, it would also check the HOST-IMP transmission hardware. (BB&N claims the HOST-IMP hardware will be as reliable as the internal registers of the HOST. We believe Crocker [Page 4] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 them, but we still want the error checking.) III. The Host Software Establishment of a Connection The simplest connection we can imagine is where the local HOST acts as if it is a TTY and has dialed up the remote HOST. After some consideration of the problems of initiating and terminating such a connection , it has been decided to reserve link 0 for communication between HOST operating systems. The remaining 31 links are thus to be used as dial-up lines. Each HOST operating system must provide to its user level programs a primitive to establish a connection with a remote HOST and a primitive to break the connection. When these primitives are invoked, the operating system must select a free link and send a message over link 0 to the remote HOST requesting a connection on the selected link. The operating system in the remote HOST must agree and send back an accepting message over link 0. In the event both HOSTs select the same link to initiate a connection and both send request messages at essentially the same time, a simple priority scheme will be invoked in which the HOST of lower priority gives way and selects another free link. One usable priority scheme is simply the ranking of HOSTS by their identification numbers. Note that both HOSTs are aware that simultaneous requests have been made, but they take complementary actions: The higher priority HOST disregards the request while the lower priority HOST sends both an acceptance and another request. The connection so established is a TTY-like connection in the pre-log-in state. This means the remote HOST operating system will initially treat the link as if a TTY had just called up. The remote HOST will generate the same echos, expect the same log-in sequence and look for the same interrupt characters. High Volume Transmission Teletypes acting as terminals have two special drawbacks when we consider the transmission of a large file. The first is that some characters are special interrupt characters. The second is that special buffering techniques are often employed, and these are appropriate only for low-speed character at time transmission. We therefore define another class of connection to be used for the transmission of files or other large volumes of data. To initiate this class of link, user level programs at both ends of an established TTY-like link must request the establishment of a file-like connection parallel to the TTY-like link. Again the priority scheme comes into Crocker [Page 5] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 play, for the higher priority HOST sends a message over link 0 while the lower priority HOST waits for it. The user level programs are, of course, not concerned with this. Selection of the free link is done by the higher priority HOST. File-like links are distinguished by the fact that no searching for interrupt characters takes place and buffering techniques appropriate for the higher data rates takes place. A Summary of Primitives Each HOST operating systems must provide at least the following primitives to its users. This list knows not to be necessary but not sufficient. a) Initiate TTY-like connection with HOST x. b) Terminate connection. c) Send/Receive character(s) over TTY-like connection. d) Initiate file-like connection parallel to TTY-like connection. e) Terminate file-like connection. f) Send/Receive over file-like connection. Error Checking We propose that each message carry a message number, bit count, and a checksum in its body, that is transparent to the IMP. For a checksum we suggest a 16-bit end-around-carry sum computed on 1152 bits and then circularly shifted right one bit. The right circular shift every 1152 bits is designed to catch errors in message reassembly by the IMPs. Closer Interaction The above described primitives suggest how a user can make simple use of a remote facility. They shed no light on how much more intricate use of the network is to be carried out. Specifically, we are concerned with the fact that as some sites a great deal of work has gone into making the computer highly responsive to a sophisticated console. Culler's consoles at UCSB and Englebart's at SRI are at least two examples. It is clear that delays of a half-second or so for trivial echo-like responses degrade the interaction to the point of making the sophistication of the console irrelevant. We believe that most console interaction can be divided into two Crocker [Page 6] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 parts, an essentially local, immediate and trivial part and a remote, more lengthy and significant part. As a simple example, consider a user at a console consisting of a keyboard and refreshing display screen. The program the user is talking typing into accumulates a string of characters until a carriage return is encountered and then it processes the string. While characters are being typed, it displays the characters on the screen. When a rubout character is typed, it deletes the previous non-rubout character. If the user types H E L L O <- <- P where <- is rubout and is carriage-return, he has made nine keystrokes. If each of these keystrokes causes a message to be sent which in return invokes instructions to our display station we will quickly become bored. A better solution would be to have the front-end of the remote program -- that is the part scanning for <- and -- be resident in our computer. In that case, only one five character message would be sent, i.e., H E L P , and the screen would be managed locally. We propose to implement this solution by creating a language for console control. This language, current named DEL, would be used by subsystem designers to specify what components are needed in a terminal and how the terminal is to respond to inputs from its keyboard, Lincoln Wand, etc. Then, as a part of the initial protocol, the remote HOST would send to the local HOST, the source language text of the program which controls the console. This program would have been by the subsystem designer in DEL, but will be compiled locally. The specifications of DEL are under discussion. The following diagrams show the sequence of actions. Crocker [Page 7] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 A. Before Link Establishment / \ | +-----------+ +-----------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | terminal | | terminal | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+-----+ +-----+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+-----+ +-----------+ | | | | | Request connection | | | | UCLA { | | | -> over link 25 | | | } SRI | | +-+-+ | +-+ +-+ | +-+-+ | | | | | OS|---+-=|I|----------|I|=-+---| OS| | | | | +-+-+ | +-+ +-+ | +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----------+ +-----------+ | | HOST: UCLA HOST: SRI | \ / Crocker [Page 8] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 b. After Link Establishment and Log-in / \ | +-----------+ +-----------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | terminal | | terminal | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+-----+ +-----+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+-----+ "Please send front"+-----------+ | | | | | end control" | | | | UCLA { | | | -> | | | } SRI ___ | | +-+-+ | +-+ +-+ | +--+---+ | | / | | | | OS|---+-=|I|----------|I|=-+--|OS|NLS| +----+---| | | | +-+-+ | +-+ +-+ | +------+ | | |___/ | | | DEL prog. | | | | | | | | <- | | | |____| | +-----------+ +-----------+ | | HOST: UCLA HOST:SRI | \ / Crocker [Page 9] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 c. After Receipt and Compilation of the DEL program / \ | +-----------+ +-----------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | terminal | | terminal | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+-----+ +-----+-----+ | | |Trivial | | | |Responses | | | | | | | +-----+------+ +-----------+ | | | | | | | | | UCLA { | | | Major Responses | | | } SRI ___ | | +--+--+ | +-+ +-+ | +--+---+ | | / | | | |DEL |---+-=|I|----------|I|=-+--|OS|NLS| +---+---| | | | |front| | +-+ +-+ | +------+ | | |___/ | | | end | | | | | | | | | |prog.| | | | | |____| | | +-----+ | | | | | | | OS | | | | | | | +-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | +------------+ +-----------+ | | HOST: UCLA HOST: SRI | \ / Open Questions 1. If the IMPs do code conversion, the checksum will not be correct. 2. The procedure for requesting the DEL front end is not yet specified. IV. Initial Experiments Experiment One SRI is currently modifying their on-line retrieval system which will be the major software component on the Network Documentation Center so that it can be operated with model 35 teletypes. The control of the teletypes will be written in DEL. All sites will write DEL compilers and use NLS through the DEL program. Experiment Two Crocker [Page 10] RFC 1 Host Software 7 April 1969 SRI will write a DEL front end for full NLS, graphics included. UCLA and UTAH will use NLS with graphics. [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ] [ into the online RFC archives by Celeste Anderson 3/97 ] Crocker [Page 11]

以前做SAP开发时在网上找的，拿来和大家共享

含有RFC所有文档，而且还是中文的！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！