Patent Application
20090248737
Modern computer systems comprise a large variety of interrelated objects, such as files and file collections (e.g., a set of MP3s comprising an album), applications, user profiles, personal data sets (e.g., bookmark lists, contact lists, and calendars), data caches (e.g., browser history and “most recently used” lists), password and permission sets (e.g., public/private key pairs, certificates, and data sharing information), and configuration information for the system, devices, operating shell, and applications. From another perspective, the computer system comprises a set of applications, each of which manages a complex data set comprising a distinct variety of data objects stored in various ways and locations of the computer system.
In many computer systems, these forms of data are arranged in an ad hoc manner, wherein some forms of data overlap in a functional but arbitrary manner (e.g., configuration information may be stored in one or more files, and files may be affected by data sharing permissions stored in a system registry.) Moreover, various computer systems may be configured to interoperate by sharing these objects in various ways, e.g., by synchronizing two sets of similar data across two or more devices.
This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key factors or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.
The variety and interrelations of objects comprising a computer system may complicate many common operations. As a first example, an object backup, copy, or synchronization operation applied to a particular object set may be complicated by the representation of objects in many forms (such as files, configuration information stored in a system registry, user profile information, and protected password information) and in many locations, some of which may commingle objects of other object sets. As a second example, querying the computer system for a particular kind of object (e.g., all object owned by a particular user) may involve an extensive search of many object stores, such as file systems, registries, data caches, security privilege sets, and schema-specific portions of objects, such as records in a shared address list. As a third example, sharing an object set with another device (even if owned by the same user) may be complicated by the circumstances of network communication (e.g., where is the device located, and how much bandwidth can be utilized in communicating with it?) and the nature of the device (e.g., how much capacity does the target device have, and what sorts of objects can be sent to it, and how should it be formatted?) As a fourth example, the foregoing considerations may be further complicated in a scenario of sharing data among users, which may involve considerations of the roles and security privileges of the users. These problems and others may arise upon attempting to provide a consistent computing environment across multiple devices, including the same application set (albeit customized for the capabilities of each device)—especially where the object set is distributed across multiple devices, which ideally may operate seamlessly and be presented to the user as an aggregated object set.
In view of these considerations, a computer system may be devised that stores objects in a consistent manner and centralizes the management of objects for improved consistency and easier administration. A computer system may be devised as a primary access point comprising an aggregated object system that stores many types of objects—files and file sets, installed applications, various types of configuration information sets, user profiles and privileges, data caches, etc.—as one set of objects having some basic commonalities, and arranged in a hierarchy comprising the entire configuration of the computer system. The computer system may therefore perform operations such as querying, synchronizing, and copying in a uniform manner across all object types. The computer system may also manage a variety of devices exposing the same object set, such as by configuring the devices to present to the user consistent user interface and a common set of deployed applications. Moreover, the computer system may adjust the object set deployed to a device based on its capabilities, e.g., by deploying a full-featured version of an application to a more powerful device and a lighter version of the same application to a less powerful device. The computer system may also coordinate the synchronization of data distributed across the devices (e.g., by mapping some objects stored on a first device within the aggregated object system, such that when a second device attempts to access the aggregated object system, the computer system may automate and manage the exposure of the objects on the first device to the second device.) These and other aspects of this object system model promote a unification of the user experience across many devices, wherein, each device serves as a portal to the same object set, despite the myriad types and locations of the objects and the technicalities in exchanging and synchronizing such devices and objects.
Accordingly, an object system may be devised that represents all objects comprising a computer system in a single hierarchy and according to a common grammar. A computer system configured to manage objects stored in this manner may also comprise a set of services for performing various operations on the object set, such as backup, copying, synchronization, querying, sharing, security, concurrent access management, and rendering in various formats. Moreover, various portions of the object set may be extended with domain-specific data represented according to a common grammar, and may be managed by the services of the managing computer system in a consistent manner. The object set may also be rendered differently for different devices, thereby providing access to the same object set while also customizing the participation of a device based on its capabilities. A computer system modeled in this manner is therefore presented to the user in a consistent manner, and with improved automation of data exchange, object set synchronization, and device configuration.
To the accomplishment of the foregoing and related ends, the following description and annexed drawings set forth certain illustrative aspects and implementations. These are indicative of but a few of the various ways in which one or more aspects may be employed. Other aspects, advantages, and novel features of the disclosure will become apparent from the following detailed description when considered in conjunction with the annexed drawings.
The claimed subject matter is now described with reference to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals are used to refer to like elements throughout. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the claimed subject matter. It may be evident, however, that the claimed subject matter may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form in order to facilitate describing the claimed subject matter.
Modern computer systems comprise a large number and variety of objects. Many computer systems feature a file store containing both the files for configuring the computer system (including executables, class libraries, configuration information sets, and resources) and user files generated or received by one or more users. Many computer systems also comprise a wide range of configuration information comprising the computer system hardware and software, including the hardware and devices of the computer system, the operating system, the shell user interface, and the configuration of the applications available within the shell user interface. Various user profiles and accounts may also exist, the former comprising information describing a particular user or user class (name, shell user interface preferences, home directory, etc.), and the latter comprising information describing the privileges of the user or class (file ownership, read/write privileges, access to various devices, etc.) Protected security information, such as passwords, certificates, public/private key pairs, and access control lists, may be stored in a security object, over which the operating system may exert regulated access. One or more data caches may exist, such as browser caches and histories, recent entries in application or browser textboxes, and recently used file and object lists. Various applications may create application- or task-specific archives, such as an email archive containing various folders and messages and a shared address book containing contact information received from various sources by various system users and organized in user-defined groups. Finally, the computer system may be configured to exchange particular sets of information with other computers, users, and devices, such as objects to be synchronized and object sets to which access may be granted with various conditions (read/write privileges, ownership, quotas, etc.) Such object types are typically managed by various management systems (e.g., a file system, a system registry store, a user account management system, and an email system) within the computer system in an ad hoc manner, with little consistency or standardization of access methods or object organization.
This large number and variety of objects comprising a computer system creates many problems in the use and administration of the computer system. As a first example, a backup operation of such a computer system may be very difficult, as it involves differentiating user data from system-specific information. This differentiation may not be simple; for instance, application configuration data may have been created by the user (who may desire to preserve the configuration) or by the application installer, and information about object ownership (which the user may wish to preserve) may be defined in terms of user profiles and accounts modeled by the computer system. As a second example, a user may wish to query the computer system for objects matching a certain description, such as objects that have been created or changed in the last seven days, but processing this query may involve many object stores (e.g., one or more file stores on various storage devices, the system registry, the browser cache and history, bookmarks stored in a browser bookmark set, and email messages managed by an email system.) These object stores may be managed as data silos, each managed by a different system with a particular (and often proprietary) interface, and with little commonality among the objects. As a third example, the object set of the computer system may be distributed across several devices, but providing consistent access to the object sets may be complicated by the various configurations of the devices, the network capabilities of each device, and incompatibilities in the wire formats used by each device for exchanging data (e.g., a first device may be configured to exchange data according to an XML schema, and a second device may be configured to exchange data according to JSON.)
A more detailed scenario in which the difficulties of an ad hoc arrangement of computer system objects relates to the presentation of a computer system in a device-independent manner. For example, a user may wish to access a host computer system on many types of devices, such as through a cellphone, through a second computer system (such as a notebook computer owned by the same user), and through a browser on a third computer system (such as a public access terminal.) The user may wish to access the same object store presented by of the host computer system, utilize the same applications that are installed and available on the host computer system, and experience the same user interface as configured on the host computer system.
The ad hoc arrangement of objects in the host computer system creates many difficulties in this scenario. First, the cellphone device may have very few computing resources, such as processing power and system memory, and may be able to store only a small portion of the object set comprising the computer system. Moreover, the cellphone device may be incapable of running the powerful applications installed on the host computer system, and the user may have to manually install cellphone-targeted versions of the same applications. Second, the notebook computer may only have sporadic network communication with the host computer system. The user may expect the notebook computer to mirror the host computer system, such as by installing the same applications and synchronizing changes to the object set between the computer systems. However, the storage of objects of many types and in many locations through many object systems may complicate the synchronization process, and the user may achieve only a partial mirroring of the computer system across both machines and with a significant amount of conscious effort (e.g., user-driven synchronization of files between the two machines.) The user may also have to install and configure the operating system and applications of the notebook computer separately from the host computer system, resulting in a duplication of administrative labor and likely computer system inconsistencies in the event of configuration differences. Third, the browser of the third computer system may be incapable of operating on the objects of the host computer system, and may be incapable of executing the applications installed on the host computer system.
One approach to providing a consistent user experience involves the configuration of devices as a thin client, wherein the host computer system sends the output of the user interface (including the display and sound output) to a device, and the device sends user input (including keyboard and pointing input) back to the host computer system. While a thin client approach may improve the consistency of the user interface exposed through multiple devices, this approach presents several drawbacks. First, the experience is often limited by the network capacity; e.g., playing a movie through a thin client interface may involve attempting to stream the movie with realtime performance across the network, which may not be feasible. This difficulty is caused by the local unavailability of the movie on the thin client device, which is merely a visual portal to the graphic interface of the host computer system. Second, the network latency of every user interaction diminishes the computing experience. Each time the user wishes to access an object—even accessing the same object repeatedly—the thin client device communicates the request to the host computer system for a response. Indeed, many thin clients are configured such that every keystroke is sent from the thin client device to the host computer system, received, and processed before the visual result of the keystroke is available to the device and displayed for the user. The network latency causes a lag in object access and user input realization that rapidly degrades the performance of the thin client user experience. Third, the user experience may be difficult to customize based on the resources of the thin client device. For example, a cellphone with limited screen resolution may be unable to display the native, large desktop space of the host computer system. Moreover, the host computer system may be unaware of the limitations of the thin client device (indeed, the host computer system may strive to render the same user interface and applications on the device in the interest of user experience consistency), and may be unable to configure an application for suitable performance on the thin client device (e.g., by configuring a web browser running on the host computer system to render pages in a mobile-friendly manner, such as the Wireless Application Protocol.) Fourth, this approach is difficult or untenable over an unavailable or sporadic network connection. The user may be unwilling to accept intermittent access to the host computer system, particularly if the thin client computer system has equivalent system resources (such as a notebook computer of similar capabilities as the host computer system) and may be capable of providing the same user experience if configured similarly to the host computer system and if a mirror copy of the object set is locally stored.
A second approach to providing a consistent user interface involves a roaming profile, comprising a transmission of user settings to several similarly configured devices that improves the presentation of a customized user interface. A device that connects to the roaming profile server may therefore receive the user profile and (e.g.) apply the custom configurations atop a default system configuration. While a roaming profile may be helpful for improving the deployment of a customized user interface across many devices, several drawbacks exist that limit the utility of a roaming profile approach for consistent ser interface access. First, the roaming profile is typically limited to the system configuration (e.g., application and shell settings) and user information (e.g., the user's name and security privileges), and is not structured to include objects, such as hierarchically organized files, application binaries, and security tokens. Second, because the roaming profile is specified as a set of configuration parameters to be applied atop the native configuration of the device, this approach is only feasible for devices configured in a similar manner. A high-performance workstation, a subnotebook device, and a cellphone are generally configured very differently, and a roaming profile targeted to one such device may be of limited use on the other devices, and might cause additional problems due to misconfiguration. For instance, a particular user preference (e.g., the time threshold between pointing-device clicks that signifies a double-click) might vary among different devices, but a roaming profile may undesirably apply one user preference to all such devices in order to promote a unified user experience. Moreover, a roaming profile configured for a workstation might reflect the user's preference for a Dvorak keyboard configuration, but applying the configuration information contained therein to a cellphone might result in a rearrangement of text input in an unusable manner. Third, roaming profiles are deployed through a read-only mechanism, and are not designed to accept the many changes to the computer environment that typically occur during a computing session. Fourth, at most, roaming profiles may achieve only a loose aggregation of the devices and data stored therein, and it may be difficult to specify particular aspects of device interrelationships (e.g., that a data store of a cellphone should be backed up to a network on a daily basis.) Thus, while roaming profiles may promote the configuration of several similar devices in a more uniform manner, this approach does not provide a unified user experience among a variety of interconnected devices.
In contrast with these approaches, the approach provided herein involves representing a computing environment in a manner that may be delivered to devices for rendering according to the capabilities of the device. The representation comprises a set of objects organized according to an object hierarchy and represented according to a common grammar. The objects include the data objects of the computer system, such as the user files and data created by the user. The objects also include the executable binaries and class libraries comprising the operating system components, such as the shell, and the applications offered therein. The object also include the information specifying the user interface of a computing environment, including shell preferences (e.g., visual themes, application launch menu, and double-click threshold), user accounts and privileges, security information (e.g., passwords, security tokens, and certificates), application binaries and configuration information, user data and metadata (e.g., file sharing information), and data caches (e.g., most-recently-used file lists and browser history.) Despite the various nature and uses of these objects, the objects are represented in a common manner in the object hierarchy, and may be arbitrarily organized in the hierarchy. Thus, in contrast with former systems comprising a set of isolated data stores, each containing one type of object (e.g., a file system containing files, a registry containing configuration information, and a data cache containing the browser history), the object hierarchy in this approach organizes all such objects in a common manner in the object hierarchy.
A computing environment represented in this manner may be delivered to any device and rendered in a manner suitable for the capabilities of the device. For instance, a primary workstation may render the information as a robust and general-purpose computing environment, while a public workstation may render a different computing environment experience through a web browser (e.g., as a virtual machine that may be discarded at the end of the user's session), and a cellphone may provide a leaner interface with quicker access to cellphone-related information (e.g., contacts, calendar, and navigation data.) Moreover, updates to the information set (e.g., preference changes and updates to data files contained therein) may be applied to the primary source of the information set, and thereby propagated to all other devices to which the information set is delivered. Also, the devices sharing the computing environment may be integrated through the shared information set, such that one device may interact with others that are identified in the information set; e.g., data stored on a first device may be accessed by a second device, and a first device may be controlled by a second device through a communications conduit. The information set may therefore identify the collection of devices that share the computing environment, along with the roles, capabilities, and resources of each device, to provide an integrated computing experience across a potentially large number and variety of devices.
The representation of objects comprising a computing environment as an object hierarchy, such as illustrated in
Some of the advantages that may be realized by a computing environment representation of this nature are related to the representation of the objects in a standard manner, such that the objects may be represented together in the object hierarchy. However, if the objects are represented according to an object format with certain structural constraints, it may be difficult to represent certain kinds of objects according to the object format. For instance, an object format may devised wherein each object has a string specifying its name. However, some objects may be anonymous, and other objects may comprise a plurality of names that cannot be summarized as a single string. However, if the objects share no commonality, then they may only be represented in a plain binary format, such as in a typical file system. Moreover, the representation of objects in this manner may be difficult to serialize for communication. For instance, each object may be coded with a binary-to-text encoding mechanism, such as uuencode, but the resulting objects may be inefficiently large and difficult to manipulate except as raw binary objects. Alternatively, the objects may be represented according to a well-typed system, such as a typical object-oriented programming platform. However, this approach limits the extensibility of the object hierarchy, because custom objects can only be stored if defined according to the typing system, and such definitions may be unavailable.
An alternative approach for representing the objects in a common but content-agnostic manner involves the use of a simple grammar, wherein the components of an object may be represented in a basic manner. For instance, it may be recognized that objects typically contain three types of data elements: atoms (single units of data, such as a number or a character), records (collections of single units of data operating together), and sequences (aggregations of elements.) A record generally denotes a set of elements that function together indivisibly as a representation, such as the numbers 7, 4, and 1776 together representing the date Jul. 4, 1776; whereas a sequence denotes a divisible set of items, such as 2, 3, 5, and 7 comprising a subset of the prime numbers. Moreover, the grammar may be devised with recursion, which may permit the nesting of certain kinds of elements (e.g., sequences of sequences, or a record containing a sequence as one element of the record.)
A first significant advantage of this grammatic representation of the objects comprising the object hierarchy relates to the content-agnostic nature of the organization. Whereas many conventional computer systems are organized as data silos containing similar types of object (e.g., a system registry containing registry entries, an assembly cache containing executable binaries, a file system containing files, and a browser history cache containing browser history cache records), the object hierarchy represented by the exemplary grammar 40 of
A second significant advantage of this grammatic representation of the objects comprising the object hierarchy relates to the extensibility of the computing environment representation. In many scenarios, a user may wish to add customized data and objects to the object hierarchy, and may wish to extend the information associated with one or more objects, such as through user-defined metadata. As a first example, completely new types of objects may be devised by various users and inserted into the object hierarchy. As long as the objects are represented according to the recursable base representation format (e.g., the recursable sequence/record/atom organization embodied in the exemplary grammar 40 of
The representation of the computing environment as described herein may vary in several aspects, and some variations may present additional advantages and/or mitigate disadvantages with respect to other variations of these and other techniques. Such variations may be incorporated, alone or in combination, in many embodiments of these techniques, such as the exemplary method 50 of
A first aspect that may vary among implementations of these techniques relates to the structural representation of the objects according to the recursable base representation format. As noted in the description of the exemplary grammar 40 of
A second aspect that may vary among implementations of these techniques relates to the organization of the object hierarchy. As one example, and as illustrated in the exemplary object hierarchy 10 of
A third aspect that may vary among implementations of these techniques relates to different ways of expressing the computing environment representation. The computing environment representation may often be expressed as a complete set of objects comprising the entire object hierarchy of the computing environment. However, the expression may adjusted, such as by adding or removing detail, rearranging or omitting portions of the object hierarchy, and transforming the representation into representation formats other than the recursable base representation format.
A first example of a transformation of the computing environment representation relates to the amount of detail provided in a representation of the computing environment. A system may be configured to store all of the objects of the object hierarchy comprising the computing environment (such as within the computing environment object store 62 of the exemplary system 60 of
Many scenarios may motivate such a partial representation. As a first scenario, it may be appreciated that the large number, sizes, and varieties of objects comprising a computing environment may involve a considerable amount of storage space. Many devices may not be have sufficient capacity to store the complete representation, such as a cellphone device featuring a limited amount of solid-state storage. Accordingly, where the computing environment represented to a device, the representation may be adjusted according to capabilities of the device.
As a second scenario, a device requesting the computing environment may simply not need some objects in the object hierarchy, which may be omitted for convenience. For instance, a representation of the exemplary object hierarchy 10 of
As a third scenario, a device may be in communication with the system storing the complete representation over a communications channel of limited bandwidth. Indeed, even comparatively fast network connections may be unable to transmit a complete representation of the computing environment in a timely manner. For instance, transmitting a 100 gigabyte computing environment representation over an 802.11 g wireless connection capable of a theoretical maximum of 6.75 megabytes/second transfer rate (not accounting for network overhead) may entail over four hours of dedicated, completely saturated bandwidth.
As a fourth scenario, the computing environment may be represented on behalf of an untrusted user (such as a visitor, or a user having only limited access to the computing environment) or on an untrusted device (such as a public terminal.) It may be desirable to restrict access to certain objects or portions of the object hierarchy. Thus, portions of the object hierarchy may be identified as withheld due to inadequate authorization, or may be obfuscated such that the withholding is undetectable, and the objects and the omitted portion of the object hierarchy are simply not visible. Accordingly, the representation adjusted according to the user.
As a fifth scenario, a portion of the object hierarchy may not be stored by the system hosting the computing environment representation, but may be stored elsewhere. For instance, some of the objects comprising the object hierarchy may be stored on various devices, and may be retrieved from the device and included in the representation (when the device storing such objects is reachable and communicable.) For instance, a computing environment may be represented as an object hierarchy including a set of contacts (e.g., the contacts set 18 of the exemplary object hierarchy 10 of
In these and other scenarios, the computing environment may be represented in a partitioned manner, comprising only a portion of the object hierarchy and a subset of the objects organized therein. One manner of achieving this partitioning is by representing one or more nodes of the object hierarchy as an unexpanded node, with the object of the node and the subordinate (child) nodes of the node omitted. The unexpanded node may be indicated as such in the representation. As a first example, where the computing environment is represented on behalf of a device having a capability such as a device storage capacity, the computing environment may be represented with at least one representing the computing environment with unexpanded nodes to limit the size of the represented computing environment to not exceed the device storage capacity. As a second example, where the computing environment is represented on behalf of a user, the computing environment may specify a user account for the user, and the computing environment specifying the access privileges for the user account to the objects of the computing environment. In this case, the computing environment representation may be adjusted by representing the computing environment with at least one unexpanded node representing a portion of the object hierarchy restricted from the user according to the access privileges of the user account.
Moreover, the unexpanded node may be indicated as available upon request, and the system hosting the complete representation of the computing environment may be configured to receive and process requests to expand unexpanded nodes. For instance, the exemplary system 60 of
A second example of an adjustment of the computing environment representation relates to the expression of the representation according to a data interchange format. Many protocols have been and may be devised for expressing objects in an object hierarchy, such as XML, JSON, YAML, binary serialization, and textual serialization. These and other data interchange formats offer various advantages and disadvantages, such as extensibility, ease of schema transformation, compactness, supplementation with various services (e.g., XPath querying and XSL transformations), intercompatibility with other data interchange formats (e.g., XHTML), and degrees of support in various languages (e.g., Python and Perl.) Moreover, most data interchange formats are capable of representing nested objects organized according to the minimal principles of a recursive base representation format (e.g., the representation of data units organized as atoms, records, and sequences.)
A third example of an adjustment of the computing environment representation relates to the production of class instances structured according to a platform representation, where such class instances are represented in the object hierarchy. Many computing platforms support the definition of classes, which may specify various member items, methods, events, interfaces, and security/access details with respect to members of the class. A computing environment configured to operate on these platforms may encapsulate instances of such classes in the represented object hierarchy, and it may be desirable to generate class instances from the object hierarchy. For instance, the exemplary object hierarchy 10 of
A fourth aspect that may vary among implementations of these techniques relates to the alteration of the representation. In many cases, a session of a computing environment on a device may result in an alteration of the computing environment, such as a creation of objects or new portions of the object hierarchy, an updating of an object or a portion of the object hierarchy, or a deletion of an object or a portion of the object hierarchy. Indeed, a large number of alterations to the computing environment may be made even during a short session of ordinary use where the computing environment includes commonly used caches, such as browser histories and most-recently-used item lists. The alterations may be stored locally in the device, but until the alterations are propagated to the host of the computing environment representation, the alterations may not be visible to other devices (except, e.g., where the altered portion of the object hierarchy is delegated to storage in the object store of the device.)
Accordingly, embodiments of these techniques may be capable of receiving and applying alterations to the computing environment representation. For instance, a system configured to store the representation of the computing environment (such as the exemplary system 60 of
A fifth aspect that may vary among implementations of these techniques relates to the services that may be applied to the objects and the object hierarchy comprising the computing environment. The variety of objects included in the computing environment representation may span a considerable gamut of variety, including data files such as images, user profile information, passwords, application binaries, and various data caches. However, because the objects of the object environment are stored according to a recursable base representation format, a set of services may be applied to manipulate the objects of the computing environment in a similar manner. For example, a synchronization service may be devised to synchronize a portion or entirety of one object hierarchy (such as the object hierarchy stored by the server responsible for hosting the computing environment) with a portion or entirety of another object hierarchy (such as the object hierarchy stored on a device and altered during a session of the computing environment operated thereupon.) The synchronization may be performed in many ways, such as unidirectionally (making one object hierarchy match another), bidirectionally based on the date of the updates, bidirectionally based on user choices, etc. A backup service may be devised to generate and store a full or differential image of an object hierarchy on an archival device, such as a tape drive. A querying service may be devised to identify objects in the object hierarchy matching a certain description (e.g., locating all of the objects in the exemplary object hierarchy 10 of
Because these services operate on the objects represented according to the recursable base representation format, the services may be configured to apply to very different types of objects in a uniform manner; e.g., synchronizing a user profile among various devices through a synchronization service may be performed in the same manner as synchronizing files among various file stores. Accordingly, embodiments of these techniques (such as the exemplary method 50 of
The variations of the aspects discussed hereinabove may also be implemented in combination to provide several of the advantages and to reduce several of the disadvantages discussed heretofore. One such combination is illustrated in
To facilitate such accessing, a system of this nature (such as the exemplary system 110 of
In view of the foregoing techniques and variations, it may be appreciated that this formulation and management of an object hierarchy enables a deployable computing environment operating in a consistent manner on a variety of devices.
Although not required, embodiments are described in the general context of “computer readable instructions” being executed by one or more computing devices. Computer readable instructions may be distributed via computer readable media (discussed below). Computer readable instructions may be implemented as program modules, such as functions, objects, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), data structures, and the like, that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Typically, the functionality of the computer readable instructions may be combined or distributed as desired in various environments.
In other embodiments, device 152 may include additional features and/or functionality. For example, device 152 may also include additional storage (e.g., removable and/or non-removable) including, but not limited to, magnetic storage, optical storage, and the like. Such additional storage is illustrated in
The term “computer readable media” as used herein includes computer storage media. Computer storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions or other data. Memory 158 and storage 160 are examples of computer storage media. Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, Digital Versatile Disks (DVDs) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by device 152. Any such computer storage media may be part of device 152.
Device 152 may also include communication connection(s) 166 that allows device 152 to communicate with other devices. Communication connection(s) 166 may include, but is not limited to, a modem, a Network Interface Card (NIC), an integrated network interface, a radio frequency transmitter/receiver, an infrared port, a USB connection, or other interfaces for connecting computing device 152 to other computing devices. Communication connection(s) 166 may include a wired connection or a wireless connection. Communication connection(s) 166 may transmit and/or receive communication media.
The term “computer readable media” may include communication media. Communication media typically embodies computer readable instructions or other data in a “modulated data signal” such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism and includes any information delivery media. The term “modulated data signal” may include a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal.
Device 152 may include input device(s) 164 such as keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, infrared cameras, video input devices, and/or any other input device. Output device(s) 162 such as one or more displays, speakers, printers, and/or any other output device may also be included in device 152. Input device(s) 164 and output device(s) 162 may be connected to device 152 via a wired connection, wireless connection, or any combination thereof. In one embodiment, an input device or an output device from another computing device may be used as input device(s) 164 or output device(s) 162 for computing device 152.
Components of computing device 152 may be connected by various interconnects, such as a bus. Such interconnects may include a Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI), such as PCI Express, a Universal Serial Bus (USB), firewire (IEEE 1394), an optical bus structure, and the like. In another embodiment, components of computing device 152 may be interconnected by a network. For example, memory 158 may be comprised of multiple physical memory units located in different physical locations interconnected by a network.
Those skilled in the art will realize that storage devices utilized to store computer readable instructions may be distributed across a network. For example, a computing device 170 accessible via network 168 may store computer readable instructions to implement one or more embodiments provided herein. Computing device 152 may access computing device 170 and download a part or all of the computer readable instructions for execution. Alternatively, computing device 152 may download pieces of the computer readable instructions, as needed, or some instructions may be executed at computing device 152 and some at computing device 170.
Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims.
As used in this application, the terms “component,” “module,” “system”, “interface”, and the like are generally intended to refer to a computer-related entity, either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution. For example, a component may be, but is not limited to being, a process running on a processor, a processor, an object, an executable, a thread of execution, a program, and/or a computer. By way of illustration, both an application running on a controller and the controller can be a component. One or more components may reside within a process and/or thread of execution and a component may be localized on one computer and/or distributed between two or more computers.
Furthermore, the claimed subject matter may be implemented as a method, apparatus, or article of manufacture using standard programming and/or engineering techniques to produce software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof to control a computer to implement the disclosed subject matter. The term “article of manufacture” as used herein is intended to encompass a computer program accessible from any computer-readable device, carrier, or media. Of course, those skilled in the art will recognize many modifications may be made to this configuration without departing from the scope or spirit of the claimed subject matter.
Various operations of embodiments are provided herein. In one embodiment, one or more of the operations described may constitute computer readable instructions stored on one or more computer readable media, which if executed by a computing device, will cause the computing device to perform the operations described. The order in which some or all of the operations are described should not be construed as to imply that these operations are necessarily order dependent. Alternative ordering will be appreciated by one skilled in the art having the benefit of this description. Further, it will be understood that not all operations are necessarily present in each embodiment provided herein.
Moreover, the word “exemplary” is used herein to mean serving as an example, instance, or illustration. Any aspect or design described herein as “exemplary” is not necessarily to be construed as advantageous over other aspects or designs. Rather, use of the word exemplary is intended to present concepts in a concrete fashion. As used in this application, the term “or” is intended to mean an inclusive “or” rather than an exclusive “or”. That is, unless specified otherwise, or clear from context, “X employs A or B” is intended to mean any of the natural inclusive permutations. That is, if X employs A; X employs B; or X employs both A and B, then “X employs A or B” is satisfied under any of the foregoing instances. In addition, the articles “a” and “an” as used in this application and the appended claims may generally be construed to mean “one or more” unless specified otherwise or clear from context to be directed to a singular form.
Also, although the disclosure has been shown and described with respect to one or more implementations, equivalent alterations and modifications will occur to others skilled in the art based upon a reading and understanding of this specification and the annexed drawings. The disclosure includes all such modifications and alterations and is limited only by the scope of the following claims. In particular regard to the various functions performed by the above described components (e.g., elements, resources, etc.), the terms used to describe such components are intended to correspond, unless otherwise indicated, to any component which performs the specified function of the described component (e.g., that is functionally equivalent), even though not structurally equivalent to the disclosed structure which performs the function in the herein illustrated exemplary implementations of the disclosure. In addition, while a particular feature of the disclosure may have been disclosed with respect to only one of several implementations, such feature may be combined with one or more other features of the other implementations as may be desired and advantageous for any given or particular application. Furthermore, to the extent that the terms “includes”, “having”, “has”, “with”, or variants thereof are used in either the detailed description or the claims, such terms are intended to be inclusive in a manner similar to the term “comprising.”
