The present invention relates to an application properties server and method to provide software validation service to clients. More particularly, the present invention relates to a system and a method for allowing applications software using established computer network protocols to execute hierarchical configurable data validation from a centralized database.
Computer applications (“application servers”) commonly require input data to be validated prior to additional processing. The validation requirements are often dynamic. For example, validation requirements for a telephone service provider's software applications may change based on changed customer service availability, newly available or no longer available customer services, the number of customer requests in a given period, the acceptable times for requests, the version of the software running, etc.
In today's networked environment, application servers run a variety of different software protocols (e.g., J2EE Containers with CORBA orbs, J2EE Containers with RMI) and typically require a number of different data validations before performing other functions. As a result, a need exists for an application server that can dynamically maintain, process and efficiently run validations for a plurality of clients running different software protocols simultaneously.
Further, because validation needs often change, a need exists for a validation application server that can manipulate the validations run on specific fields of client validation requests without requiring extensive changes in software. Most computer software applications use configuration variables to alter its behavior without the need for regenerating code. This is most often done using text files. In today's Internet and networked environments this can cause administrative problems. This is largely because the same software application may be running on several machines, in several locations. Thus, in order to uniformly alter the behavior of all software applications, or clients, all files need to be accessible by the text files. This can cause great expense and significant administration problems. For one thing, security considerations often dictate that a text file employed to alter a software application must be on the same machine that is running the code. Therefore, the configuration file often must be replicated over several machines. If changes are made on one software application, they must also be made on all of the other applications. Errors can occur if the changes are not made consistently on all of the applications. Accordingly, a further need exists for an application server that will allow application server administrators to update the various validations done on fields of data without a new release of code.
The present invention is a system and method wherein application servers using standard software protocols may access a centralized, maintainable, validation application server coupled to a data schema for validation services on data. The client servers access the validation server via a number of methods including Internet applications, a Java RMI server, a CORBA gateway server and graphical screen interphase applications. The validation application server provides validation services on the data based on dynamically maintained, centrally stored, validation functions, and returns validation notifications to the client servers.
As shown in
Referring to
Referring to
The validation data may be stored in a format such as Oracle or Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (“LDAP”). The information may be stored in another location or may be shared with other businesses. Preferably, validation data is stored in a table based system, more preferably in an Oracle database 200. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, use of an Oracle database allows for good performance, data integrity, and a wide variety of data management tools to administer the configuration data via an administration system 300. As will also be appreciated by those skilled in the art, Oracle database 200 may be represented by two or more databases located in separate geographical locations.
As will be appreciated, each of the FIELD, CLASS and GLOBAL views has an execution sequence. Utilizing an execution sequence, which provides a layered approach, and thereby a hierarchical approach to performing validation requests, yields efficient results. According to the execution sequence for a particular view, several validation methods can be orderly executed on data for a matching field.
Before providing a specific example, the FIELD, CLASS and GLOBAL views are explained. In the preferred embodiment, the FIELD view is the highest priority validation. Preferably, for efficiency reasons, the least amount of data is sorted by the FIELD view. If a FIELD name for the associated application is in this table that entry will dictate the validations to be performed.
As an example of one embodiment of the present invention, referring to Table 1, the FIELD view contains the following data:
In the preferred embodiment, the CLASS view is the second-highest priority validation. The CLASS view is used if there is no matching entry in the FIELD view. In such a case, a lookup will be performed by the validation application server 100 on the passed field name. The validation application server 100 will check for class names that match the first part of the field name. An illustrative example is discussed below to describe the FIELD and CLASS view hierarchy.
A client application server 400 accesses the validation application server 100 with the field name of Address_1. However, in reality, the user has input no Address_1 data. Thus, there is no Address_1 item in the FIELD view. There is, however, an entry in the class view for Address. Therefore the validation functions for the class Address will be performed on the data in Address_1.
As an example of one embodiment of the present invention, referring to Table 2, the CLASS view contains the following data:
Finally, in the preferred embodiment, the GLOBAL view is the most generic method of performing validation functions. Any field that does not have an entry in either the FIELD or CLASS view will be validated with the methods dictated for the associated application information. As this view is generic, preferably the most data is handled at the GLOBAL level, thereby improving efficiency. An example is discussed below describing the hierarchy between the FIELD, CLASS and GLOBAL views.
There is no Residence_2 item in the FIELD view. There is no Residence entry in the CLASS view. There is, however, a GLOBAL validation function called NotEmpty in the GLOBAL table for the application 400 (name, version and user) that requires data validation. Therefore the data for Residence_2 will be checked to see if it is not an empty field and validation properties server 100 will provide a positive return to client 400.
In the preferred embodiment, each of the FIELD, CLASS and GLOBAL views has an execution sequence for the associated validation functions that exist for that view. This provides a layered approach to validation. An example for describing the execution sequence is described below.
The FIELD table is as follows:
In this illustrative example, there is no match for Field Name: Date_1 in the FIELD view. Here, there are only validation executions in the FIELD view table for ClassOfService and DayOfWeek. However, the validation properties server 100 recognizes that the CLASS view table has a matching item called Date. The CLASS view table has three entries (i.e., three validation methods) to be performed. The CLASS view table is as follows:
In this exemplary example, based on the Execution Sequence of “1”, the date is first checked for a non-empty field by validation method “NotEmpty.” If it passes, based on the next rule, which has an execution sequence of “5”, the date will be checked to see if it is a valid date format—using the IsValidDate method. If the date data passes that method, the date will be checked to make sure it is between Jan. 1, 2000 and Dec. 31, 2002 with the IsBetween method based on the Validation Value 1 PARM data in the CLASS view table. If the date data passes, then the data will be considered valid and the server 100 will return a positive return to the requesting client application server 400 signifying valid data. This example illustrates a “CLASS” level validation.
Next, according to the example depicted in
Referring again to
As will also be appreciated, by utilizing a centrally located storage system of dynamically maintainable validation rules, the present invention provides greater flexibility than known systems. For example, in the exemplary example discussed above, system administration 300 (
In some instances, the number of validation requests may be large depending on the number n of application clients 400 using the server 100. Constant database 200 reads may cause delays in validation service. Therefore, in one exemplary embodiment, the validation server 100 will read the database 200 data 500 into memory on startup. Updates to the validation rules and values stored in the data tables can occur after system start up.
Two exemplary methods to handle dynamic table updates are described below. The first method is to restart the validation application server 100 each night during a maintenance window. This approach is a simple restart of the validation server. The application itself would not have to restart since it could detect the lost connection to the validation server and reconnect. This would be seamless to the applications and end user of the applications. Another exemplary method involves creating a refresh function in the validation server 100. Preferably the server 100 will use a REFRESH_HOURS parameter. The memory tables will be updated from the database 200 based on this parameter. Preferably, the REFRESH_HOURS will be greater than 8. As will be appreciated, keeping the data 500 in the application server 100 memory will improve validation performance and allow or maintaining the dynamic nature of the validation routines.
The most generic field type in Java is the string. In the preferred embodiment, all data passed to the validation server 100 will be treated as a string. This will allow applications 400 to change to more generic data without impact. This embodiment will provide an interface that is as generic as possible by establishing the interface as Strings (ASCII). An example of this concept is set forth below.
As an example, assume that a business requirement was originally for an integer value for the Class of Service variable. However, since the integer values can be type cast to String and passed to the validation server 100, modifications to the rules can be made quickly. Modifications to types would cause the validation server 100 to understand application knowledge and not data values and validation rules. Testing with the legacy system determines that the value of NumberOfTelephoneLines may also be a single alpha character in some legacy systems. According to the present invention, since the variable is stored as a string the client code is not affected. Accordingly, the validation functions in the data table can be changed to an IsMember method instead of an IsBetween method. The validation value data will include all possible valid data values. This will change the validation from a check between two integer values (e.g., a number between 1 and 5) to a check for a member of the a set (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, A, T, Y). This could be done without disturbing the running applications that utilize this validation service.
Proposed ValidatorClient CLASS methods include:
In one embodiment, the client servers 400 can minimize network traffic using Field Value Hashtables. As will be appreciated, this will reduce the number of transactions to the validation application server 100 and improve performance. One call to the server 100 can contain an entire set of data in need of validation. The individual validation statuses will also be returned in a Hashtable. Preferably, the IsValid method is used to determine if all the data passed validation. If not, individual methods can be checked to determine problem areas.
Proposed FVHashTable CLASS methods include:
Proposed VRHashTable CLASS methods:
As will be appreciated, according to the embodiments discussed above, two devices that are coupled can engage in direct communications, in indirect communications or a combination thereof. Embodiments of the present invention relate to data communications via one or more networks. The data communications can be carried by one or more communications channels of the one or more networks. Examples of a network include a Wide Area Network (WAN), a Local Area Network (LAN), the Internet, a wireless network, a wired network, a connection-oriented network, a packet network, an Internet Protocol (IP) network, or a combination thereof. A network can include wired communication links (e.g., coaxial cable, copper wires, optical fibers, and so on), wireless communication links (e.g., satellite communication links, terrestrial wireless communication links, wireless LANs, and so on), or a combination thereof.
In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, instructions adapted to be executed by a processor to perform a method are stored on a computer-readable medium. The computer-readable medium can be a device that stores digital information. For example, a computer-readable medium includes a hard disk, a floppy disk, a tape and a compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), all as known in the art for storing software. The computer-readable medium is accessed by a processor suitable for executing instructions adapted to be executed. The term “adapted to be executed” is meant to encompass any instructions that are ready to be executed in their present form (e.g., machine code) by a processor, or require further validation (e.g., compilation, decryption, or provided with an access code, etc.) to be ready to be executed by a processor.
In describing representative embodiments of the present invention, the specification may have presented the method and/or process of the present invention as a particular sequence of steps. However, to the extent that the method or process does not rely on the particular order of steps set forth herein, the method or process should not be limited to the particular sequence of steps described. As one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, other sequences of steps may be possible. Therefore, the particular order of the steps set forth in the specification should not be construed as limitations on the claims. In addition, the claims directed to the method and/or process of the present invention should not be limited to the performance of their steps in the order written, unless that order is explicitly described as required by the description of the process in the specification. Otherwise, one skilled in the art can readily appreciate that the sequences may be varied and still remain within the spirit and scope of the present invention.
The foregoing disclosure of embodiments of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Many variations and modifications of the embodiments described herein will be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the above disclosure. The scope of the invention is to be defined only by the claims appended hereto, and by their equivalents.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5388255 | Pytlik et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5732218 | Bland et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5761668 | Adamchick | Jun 1998 | A |
5813017 | Morris | Sep 1998 | A |
5898836 | Freivald et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5943662 | Baba et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5958010 | Agarwal et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5958016 | Chang et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5978842 | Noble et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6004276 | Wright et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6038542 | Ruckdashel | Mar 2000 | A |
6044372 | Rothfus et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6047280 | Ashby et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6047323 | Krause | Apr 2000 | A |
6078918 | Allen et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6081517 | Liu | Jun 2000 | A |
6084877 | Egbert et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6085030 | Whitehead et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6085222 | Fujino et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6157634 | Mehta | Dec 2000 | A |
6163776 | Periwal | Dec 2000 | A |
6202096 | Williams | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6226637 | Carey et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6304647 | Frost | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6411697 | Creamer | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6453356 | Sheard | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460042 | Hitchcock | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6463528 | Rajakarunanayake | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6476833 | Moshfeghi | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6484214 | Sundermier | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6499017 | Feibelman | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6513038 | Hasegawa et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6526423 | Zawsdzki et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6546095 | Iverson | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6625274 | Hoffpauir et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6629098 | Mc George | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6665662 | Kirkwood et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6697824 | Bowman-Amuah | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6697849 | Carlson | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6718332 | Sitaraman et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6751302 | Hoang | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757720 | Weschler, Jr. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6782508 | Bahrs | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6801920 | Wischinski | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816864 | Deuser et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6839748 | Allavarpu et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6915454 | Moore et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6917944 | Prasad et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6941326 | Kadyk et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6961760 | Li et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6999570 | Alcott | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7000236 | Kirkpatrick | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7062452 | Lotvin | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7089560 | Uhler | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7191209 | Kirkpatrick et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
20010037361 | Croy | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047279 | Gargone | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020019827 | Shiman et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20030046370 | Courtney | Mar 2003 | A1 |