|
| 1 | +# abap2UI5 vs SAP UI5 & RAP |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +This page compares **abap2UI5** with SAP's typical UI development approaches: |
| 4 | +- **UI5 Freestyle apps** |
| 5 | +- **RAP (Fiori Elements)** |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +The focus is on architecture, development workflow, flexibility, and deployment. |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +## Comparison: abap2UI5 vs UI5 Freestyle |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +| Concept | abap2UI5 | UI5 Freestyle | |
| 12 | +|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------| |
| 13 | +| **UI Rendering** | ABAP generates UI5 XML Views, browser renders UI | UI5 XML Views created & rendered in frontend (WebIDE/BAS) | |
| 14 | +| **Frontend knowledge** | Frontend does not know application state or flow | Full application logic in frontend JS Controllers | |
| 15 | +| **Interactivity** | Events sent to ABAP backend via AJAX | Events handled in frontend, backend provides data via OData | |
| 16 | +| **State Management** | Managed in ABAP, Drafts emulate frontend state | State managed in frontend models, backend only persists data | |
| 17 | +| **APIs required?** | Generic HTTP handler, no OData/CDS needed | Requires OData Service (SEGW / CAP) | |
| 18 | +| **Flexibility** | Full runtime control of Views, Models, Logic in ABAP | High flexibility in frontend, but complex coordination | |
| 19 | +| **Frontend Artifacts** | No BSP, index.html is stored in ABAP source code | BSP App or UI5 repository deployment required | |
| 20 | +| **Development Workflow** | Pure ABAP, deploy by class activation | Separate frontend & backend development & deployment | |
| 21 | +| **Versioning & Deployment**| Single abapGit project, backend-only transports | Frontend and backend transported separately | |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +> **Summary:** |
| 24 | +Compared to UI5 Freestyle, abap2UI5 eliminates the need for separate frontend apps, OData services, and JavaScript controllers — enabling faster development cycles with a pure ABAP approach while keeping UI5's capabilities. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +## Comparison: abap2UI5 vs RAP (Fiori Elements) |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +| Concept | abap2UI5 | RAP (Fiori Elements) | |
| 29 | +|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------| |
| 30 | +| **UI Rendering** | UI5 XML Views generated dynamically in ABAP | UI generated from CDS annotations & templates | |
| 31 | +| **Frontend knowledge** | Frontend renders server-provided Views & Data, no logic | Frontend uses annotations, limited runtime flexibility | |
| 32 | +| **Interactivity** | Events trigger AJAX requests to backend | Interactions call OData services defined via CDS & RAP classes | |
| 33 | +| **State Management** | ABAP-driven state & drafts simulate statefulness | RAP framework handles drafts & state abstraction | |
| 34 | +| **APIs required?** | No OData/CDS needed, simple generic HTTP handler | Requires typed OData Services, CDS Views | |
| 35 | +| **Flexibility** | Full control of View, Model, Logic in ABAP, runtime changes possible | High structure, runtime changes limited by RAP framework | |
| 36 | +| **Frontend Artifacts** | No separate UI5 deployment, index.html in ABAP code | Generated UI5 app artifacts, deployment required | |
| 37 | +| **Development Workflow** | Pure ABAP, deploy via class activation | CDS, OData, UI5 artifacts developed & transported separately | |
| 38 | +| **Versioning & Deployment**| Single abapGit project, cloud & on-prem compatible | Separate transport of backend & frontend artifacts | |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +> **Summary:** |
| 41 | +While RAP enforces structured development through annotations, OData, and CDS artifacts, abap2UI5 offers more runtime flexibility and simpler development by avoiding these layers and keeping everything within ABAP. |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +## Conclusion |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +abap2UI5 provides an alternative to traditional SAP UI development approaches like UI5 Freestyle and RAP. |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +Compared to UI5 Freestyle: |
| 48 | +- It eliminates the need for separate frontend apps, OData services, and JavaScript-heavy controllers. |
| 49 | +- All UI logic stays in ABAP, simplifying development and deployment. |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +Compared to RAP: |
| 52 | +- abap2UI5 offers more runtime flexibility by avoiding rigid annotations and typed services. |
| 53 | +- It reduces backend artifacts and allows dynamic View and Model generation in ABAP. |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +While RAP and Freestyle are great for structured, large-scale projects, abap2UI5 is ideal for: |
| 56 | +- Lightweight apps |
| 57 | +- Prototyping |
| 58 | +- Developer tools |
| 59 | +- Scenarios where flexibility and simplicity are key |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +With its pure ABAP approach and seamless abapGit integration, abap2UI5 enables rapid UI5 development — fully backend-driven, yet fully UI5-compatible. |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +## Further Reading |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +- [abap2UI5 GitHub Repository](https://github.com/abap2UI5/abap2UI5) |
| 66 | +- [SAPUI5 Freestyle App Development Guide](https://sapui5.hana.ondemand.com/) |
| 67 | +- [RAP (ABAP RESTful Application Programming Model)](https://help.sap.com/viewer/product/ABAP_RESTFUL_APPLICATION_PROGRAMMING_MODEL/latest/en-US) |
| 68 | +- [Fiori Elements Overview](https://experience.sap.com/fiori-design-web/floorplans/) |
0 commit comments