Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

SAP P_SAPEA_2023 Exam - Topic 2 Question 26 Discussion

Actual exam question for SAP's P_SAPEA_2023 exam
Question #: 26
Topic #: 2
[All P_SAPEA_2023 Questions]

As an Enterprise Architect, you must ensure that future extensions to the Digital Core of the enterprise guarantee stable and reliable operations. The architecture guideline demands to follow the clean-core strategy. What does this demand ensure and entail?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-blogs-by-sap/integration-solution-advisory-methodology-isa-m-define-integration/ba-p/13397214


by Suresh at Aug 23, 2024, 10:59 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium P_SAPEA_2023 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Denny
3 months ago
I thought extensions could break things if not done right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vanesa
4 months ago
C is spot on! Side-by-side is definitely better.
upvoted 0 times
...
Novella
4 months ago
Wait, can extensions really access SAP tables directly? That sounds risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Keena
4 months ago
Totally agree, clean-core is the way to go!
upvoted 0 times
...
Hershel
4 months ago
A ensures stability during upgrades, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Elmer
5 months ago
I vaguely recall that direct access to SAP tables is discouraged, which makes me lean away from option B. It seems risky for future changes, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Cory
5 months ago
I feel like option C might be relevant too, especially with the mention of side-by-side extensibility. But I’m confused about how that fits with the clean-core strategy overall.
upvoted 0 times
...
Louvenia
5 months ago
I practiced a similar question last week, and I think option A makes the most sense. It emphasizes the importance of stable interfaces for both extensions and upgrades.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jin
5 months ago
I remember studying the clean-core strategy, and I think it’s about ensuring that extensions don’t interfere with core upgrades. But I’m not entirely sure how that relates to the interfaces.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisandra
5 months ago
The key here is that the clean-core strategy is about maintaining stable and reliable operations, even with future extensions. Option A seems to capture that best, with the focus on well-defined, upgrade-stable interfaces for extensions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yuette
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question is asking about the clean-core strategy, but the options seem to be talking about different approaches to extensions. I'll need to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Micah
5 months ago
This question seems straightforward. The clean-core strategy is about ensuring that future extensions to the Digital Core don't break the core or cause issues with upgrades. I think option A is the best answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaclyn
5 months ago
Okay, I think I've got it. The clean-core strategy is about keeping extensions separate from the core SAP application, as option C suggests. That way, upgrades and changes to the core don't impact the extensions, and vice versa.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leana
5 months ago
This is a tricky one, but I think option B is the way to go. Restoring just the C drive should get the server back up and running the fastest, and we can worry about the other volumes later.
upvoted 0 times
...
Audry
5 months ago
I remember a practice question about subscription services; I feel like bundling of software and hardware was a key driver mentioned there.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hyun
2 years ago
Side-by-side extensibility all the way! No need to mess with the core when you can build on top of it cleanly. Option C gets my vote.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erinn
2 years ago
I see the benefits of option B, direct access to SAP tables can be efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chantell
2 years ago
Ha! Direct table access? That's a recipe for disaster. Option C is the way to go - keep those extensions separate and follow the SAP guidelines.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorean
2 years ago
I prefer option C, keeping extensions separate seems more secure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vonda
2 years ago
Option A sounds like the winner to me. Keeping those interfaces well-defined and upgrade-stable is crucial for future-proofing the system.
upvoted 1 times
...
Kaitlyn
2 years ago
I agree, option A ensures stability during upgrades.
upvoted 1 times
...
Erasmo
2 years ago
The clean-core strategy is the way to go. Extensions that don't break upgrades and vice versa - that's what I'm looking for in a robust architecture!
upvoted 0 times
Celestine
2 years ago
C) Extensions are kept strictly separate from the SAP application, Extensions are developed in accordance with the SAP Application Extension Methodology. Side-by-side extensibility options are always preferable to on-stack extensibility options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Celestine
2 years ago
A) Extensions do not break an upgrade, and upgrades do not break an extension. Such extensions can access SAP business objects only through well defined, upgrade-stable interfaces.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kimbery
2 years ago
I think option A is the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Suresh
2 years ago
Hi Experts, Answer should be option A right? Extensions do not break an upgrade, and upgrades do not break an extension. Such extensions can access SAP business objects only through well defined, upgrade-stable interfaces. But practice shows B as correct answer please advise. Thanks,
upvoted 1 times
...

Save Cancel