The present invention relates generally to data processing systems and, more particularly, to a dynamic lookup service in a distributed system.
A lookup service contains an indication of where network services are located within a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, such as computers and related peripheral devices, connected in a network (for example, a local area network, wide area network, or the Internet). A “network service” refers to a resource, data, or functionality that is accessible on the network. Typically, for each service, the lookup service contains an address used by a client (e.g., a program) to access the service (e.g., a printer).
Conventional lookup services are static: whenever updates to the lookup service are needed to either add a new service or delete an existing service, the lookup service is taken offline, rendering the lookup service inaccessible, and then, the lookup service is manually updated by the system administrator. During the time when the lookup service is offline, clients in the distributed system are unable to access the lookup service and any of its network services. Another limitation of conventional lookup services is that, when updated, clients are not made aware of the updates to the lookup service until they explicitly perform a refresh operation, which downloads the latest service information to the clients. Before such a refresh, however, if a client requests a service that is no longer available, an error occurs which may cause the client to hang. Also, before a refresh, the client is not aware of any new services that have been recently added to the lookup service. It is therefore desirable to improve lookup services for distributed systems.
Systems consistent with the present invention provide an improved lookup service that allows for the dynamic addition and deletion of services. This lookup service allows for the update, i.e., addition and deletion of available services automatically, without user intervention. As a result, clients of the lookup service may continue using the lookup service and its associated services while-the updates occur. Additionally, the lookup service provides a notification mechanism that can be used by clients to receive a notification when the lookup service is updated. By receiving such a notification, clients can avoid attempting to access a service that is no longer available and can make use of new services as soon as they are added to the lookup service.
In accordance with methods consistent with the present invention, a method is provided in a data processing system having a lookup service with associated services. This method receives a request by the lookup service for notification when the lookup service is updated, determines when the lookup service is updated, and generates a notification when it is determined that the lookup service is updated.
In accordance with methods consistent with the present invention, a method is provided in a data processing system having a lookup service with associated services. This method sends a request to the lookup service to be notified when the lookup service is updated and receives an indication that the lookup service has been updated.
In accordance with methods consistent with the present invention, a method is provided in a data processing system having a lookup service with associated services and a client lookup manager with an associated cache. This method transmits an event by the lookup service that identifies a change to one of the associated network services. The client lookup manager receives the event and updates the associated cache to reflect the change.
In accordance with methods consistent with the present invention, a method is provided in a data processing system having a client and lookup service with associated services. This method receives a request from a client for access to a network service, then retrieves a reference from a cache reflecting a particular network service corresponding to the requested network service and transmits the reference to the client.
In accordance with systems consistent with the present invention, a data processing system comprising a memory and a processor is provided. The memory includes a lookup service containing indications of services that are available for use, a first client for updating the lookup service, and a second client for utilizing the lookup service while the first client is updating the lookup service. The processor runs the lookup service, the first client, and the second client.
In accordance with systems consistent with the present invention, a data processing system containing a memory and a processor is provided. The memory contains a lookup service with indications of services available for use and a client. The lookup service receives requests for notification of when the lookup service is updated, determines when the lookup service is updated, and generates notifications when the lookup service is updated. The client sends a request to the lookup service to be notified when the lookup service is updated. The processor runs the client and the lookup service.
In accordance with systems consistent with the present invention, a data processing system containing a memory and a processor is provided. The memory contains a lookup service with references to a plurality of network services available for use, a client, and a client lookup manager with an associated cache stored on the client computer. The client lookup manager accesses the lookup service and stores service references in the cache. The processor runs the client and the lookup service.
In accordance with systems consistent with the present invention, a computer-readable memory device containing a data structure is provided. This data structure is for accessing a lookup service with associated network services available for use. The data structure contains a notify method for use by a client to register with the lookup service to receive a notification from the lookup service when the lookup service is updated.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate an implementation of the invention and, together with the description, serve to explain the advantages and principles of the invention. In the drawings,
Methods and systems consistent with the present invention provide an improved lookup service that allows for the dynamic addition and deletion of services. As such, the addition and deletion of services is performed automatically, without user intervention, and clients of the lookup service may continue using the services while the updates to the lookup service occur. Additionally, clients may register with the lookup service to receive notification of when the lookup service is updated. As a result, when an update occurs, all registered clients receive a notification of the update, enabling the clients to avoid attempting to access a service that is no longer available and to use a service recently added to the lookup service.
Overview of the Distributed System
Methods and systems consistent with the present invention operate in a distributed system (“the exemplary distributed system”) with various components, including both hardware and software. The exemplary distributed system (1) allows users of the system to share services and resources over a network of many devices; (2) provides programmers with tools and programming patterns that allow development of robust, secured distributed systems; and (3) simplifies the task of administering the distributed system. To accomplish these goals, the exemplary distributed system utilizes the Java™ programming environment to allow both code and data to be moved from device to device in a seamless manner. Accordingly, the exemplary distributed system is layered on top of the Java programming environment and exploits the characteristics of this environment, including the security offered by it and the strong typing provided by it. The Java programming environment is more clearly described in Jaworski, Java 1.1 Developer's Guide, Sams.net (1997), which is incorporated herein by reference.
In the exemplary distributed system, different computers and devices are federated into what appears to the user to be a single system. By appearing as a single system, the exemplary distributed system provides the simplicity of access and the power of sharing that can be provided by a single system without giving up the flexibility and personalized response of a personal computer or workstation. The exemplary distributed system may contain thousands of devices operated by users who are geographically disperse, but who agree on basic notions of trust, administration, and policy. Within the exemplary distributed system are various logical groupings of services provided by one or more devices, and each such logical grouping is known as a Djinn. A “service” refers to a resource, data, or functionality that can be accessed by a user, program, device, or another service and that can be computational, storage related, communication related, or related to providing access to another user. Examples of services provided as part of a Djinn include devices, such as printers, displays, and disks; software, such as applications or utilities; information, such as databases and files; and users of the system.
Both users and devices may join a Djinn. When joining a Djinn, the user or device adds zero or more services to the Djinn and may access, subject to security constraints, any one of the services it contains. Thus, devices and users federate into a Djinn to share access to its services. The services of the Djinn appear programmatically as objects of the Java programming environment, which may include other objects, software components written in different programming languages, or hardware devices. A service has an interface defining the operations that can be requested of that service, and the type of the service determines the interfaces that make up that service.
As mentioned above, the exemplary distributed system 100 is based on the Java programming environment and thus makes use of the Java runtime system 216. The Java runtime system 216 includes the Java Application Programming Interface (API), allowing programs running on top of the Java runtime system to access, in a platform-independent manner, various system functions, including windowing capabilities and networking capabilities of the host operating system. Since the Java API provides a single common API across all operating systems to which the Java runtime system 216 is ported, the programs running on top of a Java runtime system run in a platform-independent manner, regardless of the operating system or hardware configuration of the host platform. The Java runtime system 216 is provided as part of the Java software development kit available from Sun Microsystems of Mountain View, Calif.
The Java virtual machine 220 also facilitates platform independence. The Java virtual machine 220 acts like an abstract computing machine, receiving instructions from programs in the form of bytecodes and interpreting these bytecodes dynamically converting them into a form for execution, such as object code, and executing them. RMI 218 facilitates remote method invocation by allowing objects executing on one computer or device to invoke methods of an object on another computer or device. Both RMI and the Java virtual machine are also provided as part of the Java software development kit.
The lookup service 212 defines the services that are available for a particular Djinn. That is, there may be more than one Djinn and, consequently, more than one lookup service within the exemplary distributed system 100. The lookup service 212 contains one object for each service within the Djinn, and each object contains various methods that facilitate access to the corresponding service. The lookup service 212 and its access are described in greater detail in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,826, entitled “Method and System for Facilitating Access to a Lookup Service,” which has previously been incorporated by reference.
The discovery server 214 detects when a new device is added to the exemplary distributed system 100, during a process known as boot and join or discovery, and when such a new device is detected, the discovery server passes a reference to the lookup service 212 to the new device, so that the new device may register its services with the lookup service and become a member of the Djinn. After the device discovers the lookup service 212, the device may access any of the services registered with the lookup service 212. Furthermore, the device may also advertise its own services by registering with the lookup service 212. Once registered, the services provided by the device may be accessed through the lookup service 212, by all other entities that also discover lookup service 212. The process of boot and join is described in greater detail in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,939, entitled “Apparatus and Method for providing Downloadable Code for Use in Communicating with a Device in a Distributed System,” which has previously been incorporated by reference.
The Java space 222 is an object repository used by programs within the exemplary distributed system 100 to store objects. Programs use the Java space 222 to store objects persistently as well as to make them accessible to other devices within the exemplary distributed system. Java spaces are described in greater detail in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/971,529, entitled “Database System Employing Polymorphic Entry and Entry Matching,” assigned to a common assignee, filed on Nov. 17, 1997, which is incorporated herein by reference. One skilled in the art will appreciate that the exemplary distributed system 100 may contain many lookup services, discovery servers, and Java spaces.
Although systems and methods consistent with the present invention are described as operating in the exemplary distributed system and the Java programming environment, one skilled in the art will appreciate that the present invention can be practiced in other systems and other programming environments. Additionally, although aspects of the present invention are described as being stored in memory, one skilled in the art will appreciate that these aspects can also be stored on or read from other types of computer-readable media, such as secondary storage devices, like hard disks, floppy disks, or CD-ROM; a carrier wave from the Internet; or other forms of RAM or ROM. Sun, Sun Microsystems, the Sun Logo, Java, and Java-based trademarks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other countries
The Lookup Service Definition
A lookup service provides a central registry of services available within a Djinn. This lookup service is the primary mechanism for programs to find services within the Djinn and is the foundation for providing user interfaces through which users and administrators can discover and interact with services of the Djinn.
The lookup service maintains a flat collection of service items. The collection is flat in that the service items do not form a hierarchy. Each service item represents an instance of a service available within the Djinn. The service item contains a stub (if the service is implemented as a remote object) or a serialized object (if the service is a local object stored in the lookup service) that programs use to access the service, and an extensible collection of attributes that describe the service or provide secondary interfaces to the service. A “stub” is code and data that facilitates access to a remote function, and a “serialized object” is an object placed in a serialized form.
Although the collection of service items is flat, a wide variety of hierarchical views can be imposed on the collection by aggregating items according to service types and attributes. The lookup service provides a set of methods to enable users and administrators to browse the collection and build a variety of user interfaces. Once an appropriate service is found, the user can interact with the service by loading a user interface applet, attached as another attribute on the item.
When a new service is created (e.g., when a new device is added to a Djinn), the service registers itself with the lookup service, providing an initial collection of attributes. For example, a printer may include attributes indicating speed (in pages per minute), resolution (in dots per inch), and whether duplex printing is supported. The attributes also contain an indicator that the service is new and needs to be configured. To configure a new service, the administrator locates an attribute that provides an applet for this purpose, and during configuration, the administrator may add new attributes, such as the physical location of the service and a common name for it. The lookup service provides an event mechanism that generates notifications as new services are registered, existing services are deleted, or attributes of a service are modified. To use the event mechanism, a client registers to be notified upon the occurrence of a particular event, and when the event occurs, the lookup service notifies the client.
Programs (including other services) that need a particular type of service can use the lookup service to find an instance of the service. A match may be made based on the specific Java programming language types implemented by the service as well as the specific attributes attached to the service.
If a service encounters a problem that needs administrative attention, like a printer running out of toner, the service can add an attribute that indicates the problem. Administrators (or programs) can then use the event mechanism to receive notification of such problems.
The attributes of a service item are represented as a set of attribute sets. An individual set of attributes may be represented as an instance of a class in the Java programming language, each attribute being a public field of that class. The class provides strong typing of both the set and the individual attributes. A service item can contain multiple instances of the same class with different attribute values as well as multiple instances of different classes. For example, an item may have multiple instances of a Name class, each giving the common name of the service in a different language, plus an instance of a Location class, an Owner class, and various service-specific classes.
Service Items are stored in the lookup service as instances of the ServiceItem class, as described below:
The “serviceID” element is a numerical identifier of the service. The “service” element is an object representing the service or a stub facilitating access to the service, and the “attributeSets” element contains the array of attributes for the service.
Items in the lookup service are matched using instances of the ServiceTemplate class, and the ServiceItemFilter interface which are defined below:
The “serviceTypes” element defines the types of the service. An item (item) matches a service template (tmpl) if item.serviceID equals tmpl.serviceID (or if tmpl.serviceID is zero) and item.service is an instance of every type in tmpl.serviceTypes, and item.attributeSets contains at least one matching entry for each entry template in tmpl.attributeSetTemplates. Entry matching uses the following rule: an entry matches an entry template if the class of the entry is the same as, or a superclass of, the class of the template and every non-null field in the template equals the corresponding field of the entry. Every entry can be used to match more than one template. Both serviceTypes and attributeSetTemplates can be null in a service template.
The ServiceItemFilter interface defines the methods used by an object to apply additional matching criteria when searching for services on a lookup service. This filtering mechanism is particularly useful to entities that wish to extend the capabilities of the standard template matching schema previously discussed. For example, since template matching does not allow one to easily search for services based on a range of attribute values, this additional matching mechanism can be exploited by the entity to ask the managing object to find all registered printer services that have a resolution attribute between 300 and 1200 dpi. As seen below, the “check” method defines the implementation of the additional matching criteria to apply to a ServiceItem object found through standard template matching. This method takes the ServiceItem object as the sole argument, to test against the additional criteria. This method returns true if the input object satisfies the additional criteria, and false otherwise.
The ServiceMatches class is used for the return value when looking up multiple items. The definition of this class follows:
The interface to the lookup service is defined by a ServiceRegistrar interface data structure. This interface is not a remote interface. Instead, each implementation of the lookup service exports proxy objects that implement the ServiceRegistrar interface local to the client, using an implementation-specific protocol to communicate with the actual remote server. “Proxy objects” refer to objects that run in the client's address space and that facilitate access to the lookup service. Methods are provided to register service items, find items that match a template, modify attributes of existing items, receive notifications when items are modified, and incrementally explore the collection of items along the three major axes: service ID, service type, and attributes. The definition of the interface follows:
This interface includes various methods, including the register method, the lookup method (single parameter form), the lookup method (two parameter form), the addAttributes method, the modifyAttributes method, the notify method, the getEntryClass method, the getFieldValues method, and the getServiceTypes method. The “register” method is used to register a new service and to re-register an existing service. This method is defined so that it can be used in an idempotent fashion. Specifically, if a call results in generation of an exception (in which case the item might or might not have been registered), the caller can simply repeat the call with the same parameters.
To register a new service using the register method, item.ServiceID should be zero; if item.ServiceID does not equal any existing item's service object, then a new unique service id will be assigned and returned. The service id is unique over time with respect to this lookup service. If item.ServiceID does equal an existing item's service object, the existing item is deleted from the lookup service (even if it has different attributes), but that item's service id is reused for the newly registered item.
To re-register an existing service using the register method, item.ServiceID should be set to the same unique service id that was returned by the initial registration. If an item is already registered under the same service id, the existing item is deleted (even if it has different attributes or a different service instance). Note that service object equality is not checked in this case to allow for reasonable evolution of the service (e.g., the serialized form of the stub changes, or the service implements a new interface).
When an item is registered, duplicate attribute sets are eliminated in the stored representation of the item. Additionally, the registration is persistent across restarts of the lookup service.
The single-parameter form of the “lookup” method returns the service object (i.e., ServiceItem.service) from an item matching the template, or null if there is no match. If multiple items match the template, it is arbitrary as to which service object is returned. If the returned object cannot be deserialized, an exception is generated.
The two-parameter form of the “lookup” method returns at most maxMatches items matching the template, plus the total number of items that match the template. The return value is never null, and the returned items array is only null if maxMatches is zero. For each returned item, if the service object cannot be deserialized, the service field of the item is set to null and no exception is generated. Similarly, if an attribute set cannot be deserialized, that element of the attributeSets array is set to null and no exception is generated.
The “addAttributes” method adds the specified attribute sets (those that aren't duplicates of existing attribute sets) to all items matching the template. The number of items that were matched is returned. Note that this operation has no effect on existing attribute sets of the matching items, and the operation can be repeated in an idempotent manner.
The “modifyAttributes” method is used to modify existing attribute sets. The lengths of tmpl.attributeSetTemplates and attrSets must be equal or an exception is generated. For each item that matches the template, the item's attribute sets are modified as follows. For each array index I: if attrSets[i] is null, then every entry that matches tmpl.attributeSetTemplates[i] is deleted; otherwise, for every non-null field in attrSets [I], the value of that field is stored into the corresponding field of every entry that matches tmpl.attributeSettemplates[i]. The class of attrSets[i] must be the same as, or a superclass of, the class of tmpl.attributeSetTemplates [I], or an exception is generated. If the modification results in duplicate entries within an item, the duplicates are eliminated. The number of items that were matched is returned.
The “notify” method is used to register for event notification. The registration is leased, and the lease expiration request is exact. The concept of a lease is described in greater detail in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,923, entitled “Method and System for Leasing Storage,” which has previously been incorporated by reference. The registration is persistent across restarts of the lookup service until the lease expires or is canceled. The event id in the returned EventRegId is unique at least with respect to all other active event registrations at this lookup service with different service templates of transitions.
While the event registration is in effect, a notification containing an indication of the event is sent to the specified listener whenever a register, lease cancellation or expiration, addAttributes, or modifyAttributes operation results in a service item changing state in a way that satisfied the template and transition combination. A list of the transitions follows, although other transitions may also be implemented within the scope of the present invention:
The “getEntryClasses” method looks at all items that match the specified template, finds every entry among those items that either doesn't match any entry templates or is a subclass of at least one match entry template, and returns the set of the (most specific) classes of those entries. Duplicate classes are eliminated, and the order of classes within the returned array is arbitrary. Null (not a empty array) is returned if there are no such entries or no matching items. If a returned class cannot be deserialized, that element of the returned array is set to null and no exception is thrown.
The “getFieldValue” method identifies all items that match the specified template. This method returns the values of the items that match the specified template.
The “getServiceTypes” method looks at all items that match the specified template, and for every service object, this method finds every type (class or interface) of which the service object is an instance that is neither equal to, nor a superclass of, any of the service types in the template, and returns the set of all such types that start with the specified package prefix. Duplicate types are eliminated, and the order of types within the returned array is arbitrary. Null (not an empty array) is returned if there are no such types. If a returned type cannot be deserialized, that element of the returned array is set to null and no exception is thrown.
The Lookup Service Processing
After the client sends the multi-cast packet, the discovery server 214 receives the packet and uses the code contained in the packet to send a reference to the lookup service to the client (step 306). After the client receives the reference to the lookup service, the client is able to utilize the interface of the lookup service to either add a service, delete a service, access a service, or request notification when the lookup service is updated, as reflected by steps 308-326.
At some point during the processing of the client, it may decide to add a service to the lookup service (step 308). If it decides to add a service, the client adds a service to the lookup service by invoking the register method, which sends to the lookup service either an object representing the service or a stub containing code and data to facilitate access to the service (step 310). The addition of the stub to the lookup service is described in greater detail in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,826, entitled “Method and System for Facilitating Access to a Lookup Service,” which has previously been incorporated by reference.
Next, the client may decide to delete one of its services from the lookup service (step 312). If a client decides to do so, the client deletes the service from the lookup service by canceling the service's lease with the lookup service (step 314). It should be noted that both the addition of a service and the deletion of a service are done dynamically and in a manner that does not prohibit other clients from using the lookup service while the update occurs.
At some point later in the processing of the client, the client may decide to access a service provided by the lookup service (step 316). If a client decides to access a service provided by the lookup service, the client accesses the service by invoking the lookup method, which retrieves from the lookup service either the object or the stub information for the service, and the client then either invokes methods on the object to use the service or uses the stub information to access the service (step 318). The step is described in greater detail in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,826, entitled “Method and System for Facilitating Access to a Lookup Service, ” which has previously been incorporated by reference.
The client may also request to be notified when an update occurs to the lookup service (step 320 in
Next, if an event has occurred for which the client wants to be notified (step 324), the registered callback routine is invoked by the lookup service (step 326). In this step, the client is notified of the occurrence of the event and can take appropriate action. For example, if a service that the client was currently using has become unavailable, the client may store information so that it no longer uses it.
However, if an event has occurred, the lookup service determines all clients registered for notification for this event (step 406). The lookup service makes this determination by accessing the event table. Next, the lookup service invokes the callback routines registered for each client identified in step 406 (step 408). In this step, the event table contains a reference to the callback routine registered by each client, and the lookup service invokes each callback routine, passing the registered objects as parameters, to notify the clients of the occurrence of the event.
Since lookup services are generally located on a computer remote from the client, a query to a lookup service typically involves a remote call. Such remote calls are much more costly in terms of processing overhead and failure risk than are local procedure calls. This cost is magnified when a client must make frequent queries for multiple services. Such scenarios make it desirable for a client to internally store references to discovered lookup services and network services of interest. This approach permits the client to identify and access lookup services by simply searching a locally stored cache. It also provides the capability for a client to efficiently react to network failures by maintaining a redundant collection of network services. The processing overhead required to perform these functions also makes it desirable to delegate the scheduling of them to a client lookup manager, and thereby free the client to perform other functions.
In accordance with the alternate embodiment, when the client lookup manager discovers a lookup service 212, the client lookup manager 814 evaluates each of the associated network services and stores references to network services of interest in the local cache 815. As shown in
To perform the function of populating the cache as shown in step 920, the client lookup manager utilizes a complex filtering algorithm to extract any subset of network services desired by a client. As shown in
Once the cache is populated, the client lookup manager handles all activities related to the cache including accessing, updating and deleting the cache. For example, as shown in
As shown in
Once the ServiceTemplate, ServiceItemFilter, MaxMatches, and WAIT arguments are input, the process proceeds to step 1210 where the method accesses a lookup service. In step 1220, the method retrieves a service reference from the lookup service and in step 1230, determines whether the retrieved service reference is a qualifying service. If a qualifying service is found, the process proceeds to step 1240 and an array of ServiceItem objects is recorded. Otherwise, the process proceeds to step 1250. After an array of ServiceItem objects is recorded in step 1240, the process then compares the number of identified matches with the MaxMatches value previously input (step 1260). If the number of identified matches equals the MaxMatches value, the process returns the identified array of ServiceItem objects in step 1270 and the process terminates. Otherwise, the process proceeds to step 1250. As indicated earlier, this process will wait a predetermined period of time for the client lookup manager to identify the requested number of qualifying services. But, it returns immediately upon discovering the requested number of service references. In step 1250, the process determines whether any more unexamined services exist inside the lookup service. If there are no more, process flows to step 1220 and another service reference is retrieved. If there are no more services in the lookup service, process flows to step 1280 to determine whether any more unexamined lookup services exist. If there are more lookup services, the process continues back to step 1210 to access another lookup service. If there are no more unexamined lookup services in step 1280, the process proceeds to step 1290 where the method determines whether the WAIT argument has been invoked (WAIT>=0) and if so, whether the duration has been exceeded.
The “wait” feature is quite useful to entities that cannot proceed until such a service of interest is found. As shown in
Just as the client may request that it be notified of state changes in network services occurring within each lookup service, as previously described in
The Conference Room Example
Described below is an example use of the lookup service 212 with respect to a conference room 500 as depicted in
The user, however, may want to add a service and thus selects the add service button 610. Upon selection of the add service button 610, a screen 700 is presented to the user as shown in
Although methods and systems consistent with the present invention have been described with reference to a preferred embodiment thereof, those skilled in the art will know of various changes in form and detail which may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined in the appended claims.
This is a divisional of application Ser. No. 09/915,645, filed Jul. 27, 2001, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,604,127, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/417,908, filed Oct. 13, 1999, now abandoned, which is a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 09/044,931, filed Mar. 20, 1998, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,611, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/076,048, filed Feb. 26, 1998. The following identified U.S. patent applications are relied upon and are incorporated by reference in this application. U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/138,680, entitled “Jini™ Technology Helper Utilities and Services.” Provisional U.S. patent application No. 60/076,048, entitled “Distributed Computing System,” filed on Feb. 26, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,923, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,350, entitled “Method and System for Leasing Storage.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,838, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,247,026, entitled “Method, Apparatus and Product for Leasing of Delegation Certificates in a Distributed System.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,834, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,421,704, entitled “Method, Apparatus and Product for Leasing of Group Membership in a Distributed System.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,933, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,463,446, entitled “Method for Transporting Behavior in Event Based System.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,919, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,272,559, entitled “Deferred Reconstruction of Objects and Remote Loading for Event Notification in a Distributed System.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/045,652, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,134,603, entitled “Method and System for Deterministic Hashes to Identify Remote Methods.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,790, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Determining Status of Remote Objects in a Distributed System.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,930, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,393,497, entitled “Downloadable Smart Proxies for Performing Processing Associated with a Remote Procedure Call in a Distributed System.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,917, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,237,024, entitled “Suspension and Continuation of Remote Methods.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,835, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,083, entitled “Method and System for Multi-Entry and Multi-Template Matching in a Database.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,839, entitled “Method and System for In-Place Modifications in a Database.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,945, entitled “Method and System for Typesafe Attribute Matching in a Database.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,939, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Providing Downloadable Code for Use in Communicating with a Device in a Distributed System.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,826, entitled “Method and System for Facilitating Access to a Lookup Service.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,932, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,947, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Dynamically Verifying Information in a Distributed System.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/030,840, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,446,070, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Dynamic Distributed Computing Over a Network.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,936, entitled “An Interactive Design Tool for Persistent Shared Memory Spaces.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,934, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,438,614, entitled “Polymorphic Token-Based Control.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,915, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,138,238, entitled “Stack-Based Access Control.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,944, now U.S. Pat No. 6,226,746, entitled “Stack-Based Security Requirements.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,837, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,282,652, entitled “Per-Method Designation of Security Requirements.”
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3449669 | Granqvist | Jun 1969 | A |
4430699 | Segarra et al. | Feb 1984 | A |
4491946 | Kryskow, Jr. et al. | Jan 1985 | A |
4558413 | Schmidt et al. | Dec 1985 | A |
4567359 | Lockwood | Jan 1986 | A |
4713806 | Oberlander et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
4800488 | Agrawal et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4809160 | Mahon et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4819233 | Delucia et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4823122 | Mann et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4939638 | Stephenson et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
4956773 | Saito et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
4992940 | Dworkin | Feb 1991 | A |
5088036 | Ellis et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5101346 | Ohtsuki | Mar 1992 | A |
5109486 | Seymour | Apr 1992 | A |
5187787 | Skeen et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5218699 | Brandle et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5253165 | Leiseca et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5257369 | Skeen et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5293614 | Ferguson et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5297283 | Kelly, Jr. et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5303042 | Lewis et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5307490 | Davidson et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5311591 | Fischer | May 1994 | A |
5319542 | King, Jr. et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5327559 | Priven et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5339430 | Lundin et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5339435 | Lubkin et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5341477 | Pitkin et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5386568 | Wold et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5390328 | Frey et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5392280 | Zheng | Feb 1995 | A |
5423042 | Jalili et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5440744 | Jacobson et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5446901 | Owicki et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5448740 | Kiri et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5452459 | Drury et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5455952 | Gjovaag | Oct 1995 | A |
5459837 | Caccavale | Oct 1995 | A |
5471629 | Risch | Nov 1995 | A |
5475792 | Stanford et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5475817 | Waldo et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5475840 | Nelson et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5481721 | Serlet et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5491791 | Glowny et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5504921 | Dev et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5506984 | Miller | Apr 1996 | A |
5511196 | Shackelford et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5511197 | Hill et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5524244 | Robinson et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5544040 | Gerbaulet | Aug 1996 | A |
5548724 | Akizawa et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5548726 | Pettus | Aug 1996 | A |
5553282 | Parrish et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5555367 | Premerlani et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5555427 | Aoe et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5557798 | Skeen et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5560003 | Nilsen et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5561785 | Blandy et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5577231 | Scalzi et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5592375 | Salmon et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5594921 | Pettus | Jan 1997 | A |
5603031 | White et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5617537 | Yamada et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5628005 | Hurvig | May 1997 | A |
5634008 | Gaffaney et al. | May 1997 | A |
5640564 | Hamilton et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5644720 | Boll et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5644768 | Periwal et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5652888 | Burgess | Jul 1997 | A |
5655148 | Richman et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5659751 | Heninger | Aug 1997 | A |
5664110 | Green et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5664111 | Nahan et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5664191 | Davidson et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5666493 | Wojcik et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5671225 | Hooper et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5671279 | Elgamal | Sep 1997 | A |
5674982 | Greve et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5675796 | Hodges et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5675797 | Chung et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5675804 | Sidik et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5680573 | Rubin et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5680617 | Gough et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5682534 | Kapoor et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5684955 | Meyer et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5689709 | Corbett et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5694551 | Doyle et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5706435 | Barbara et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5706502 | Foley et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5710887 | Chelliah et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5715314 | Payne et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5721825 | Lawson et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5721832 | Westrope et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5724540 | Kametani | Mar 1998 | A |
5724588 | Hill et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5727048 | Hiroshima et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5727145 | Nessett et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5729594 | Klingman | Mar 1998 | A |
5734706 | Windsor et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5737607 | Hamilton et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5742768 | Gennaro et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745678 | Herzberg et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745695 | Gilchrist et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745703 | Cejtin et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745755 | Covey | Apr 1998 | A |
5748897 | Katiyar | May 1998 | A |
5754849 | Dyer et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754977 | Gardner et al. | May 1998 | A |
5757925 | Faybishenko | May 1998 | A |
5758077 | Danahy et al. | May 1998 | A |
5758083 | Singh et al. | May 1998 | A |
5758328 | Giovannoli | May 1998 | A |
5758344 | Prasad et al. | May 1998 | A |
5761507 | Govett | Jun 1998 | A |
5761656 | Ben-Shachar | Jun 1998 | A |
5764897 | Khalidi | Jun 1998 | A |
5764915 | Heimsoth et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5764982 | Madduri | Jun 1998 | A |
5768524 | Schmidt | Jun 1998 | A |
5768532 | Megerian | Jun 1998 | A |
5774551 | Wu et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5774729 | Carney et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5778179 | Kanai et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5778187 | Monteiro et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5778228 | Wei | Jul 1998 | A |
5778368 | Hogan et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5784560 | Kingdon et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5787425 | Bigus | Jul 1998 | A |
5787431 | Shaughnessy | Jul 1998 | A |
5790548 | Sistanizadeh et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5790677 | Fox et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5794207 | Walker et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799173 | Gossler et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5802367 | Held et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5805805 | Civanlar et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5806042 | Kelly et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5808911 | Tucker et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5809144 | Sirbu et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5809507 | Cavanaugh, III | Sep 1998 | A |
5812819 | Rodwin et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5813013 | Shakib et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5815149 | Mutschler, III et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5815709 | Waldo et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5815711 | Sakamoto et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5818448 | Katiyar | Oct 1998 | A |
5828842 | Sugauchi et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5829022 | Watanabe et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832219 | Pettus | Nov 1998 | A |
5832529 | Wollrath et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5832593 | Wurst et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835737 | Sand et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5842018 | Atkinson et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5844553 | Hao et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5845090 | Collins, III et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5845129 | Wendorf et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5850442 | Muftic | Dec 1998 | A |
5860004 | Fowlow et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5860153 | Matena et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5864862 | Kriens et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5864866 | Henckel et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5872928 | Lewis et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5872973 | Mitchell et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5875335 | Beard | Feb 1999 | A |
5878411 | Burroughs et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5884024 | Lim et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5884079 | Furusawa | Mar 1999 | A |
5887134 | Ebrahim | Mar 1999 | A |
5887172 | Vasudevan et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889951 | Lombardi | Mar 1999 | A |
5889988 | Held | Mar 1999 | A |
5890158 | House et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5892904 | Atkinson et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5893107 | Chan et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5905868 | Baghai et al. | May 1999 | A |
5913029 | Shostak | Jun 1999 | A |
5915112 | Boutcher | Jun 1999 | A |
5925108 | Johnson et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933497 | Beetcher et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5933647 | Aronberg et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5935249 | Stern et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940504 | Griswold | Aug 1999 | A |
5940827 | Hapner et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5944793 | Islam et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5946485 | Weeren et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5946694 | Copeland et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5949998 | Fowlow et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5951652 | Ingrassia, Jr. et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5956509 | Kevner | Sep 1999 | A |
5960404 | Chaar et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5961582 | Gaines | Oct 1999 | A |
5963924 | Williams et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5963947 | Ford et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5966435 | Pino | Oct 1999 | A |
5966531 | Skeen et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5969967 | Aahlad et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974201 | Chang et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5978484 | Apperson et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5978773 | Hudetz et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5982773 | Nishimura et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987506 | Carter et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991808 | Broder et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5996075 | Matena | Nov 1999 | A |
5999179 | Kekic et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
5999988 | Pelegri-Llopart et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6003050 | Silver et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6003065 | Yan et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6003763 | Gallagher et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009103 | Woundy | Dec 1999 | A |
6009413 | Webber et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009464 | Hamilton et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6014686 | Elnozahy et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6016496 | Roberson | Jan 2000 | A |
6016516 | Horikiri | Jan 2000 | A |
6018619 | Allard et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6023586 | Gaisford et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6026414 | Anglin | Feb 2000 | A |
6031977 | Pettus | Feb 2000 | A |
6032151 | Arnold et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6034925 | Wehmeyer | Mar 2000 | A |
6041351 | Kho | Mar 2000 | A |
6044381 | Boothby et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6052761 | Hornung et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6055562 | Devarakonda et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6055570 | Nielsen | Apr 2000 | A |
6058381 | Nelson | May 2000 | A |
6058383 | Narasimhalu et al. | May 2000 | A |
6061699 | DiCecco et al. | May 2000 | A |
6061713 | Bharadhwaj | May 2000 | A |
6061740 | Ferguson et al. | May 2000 | A |
6067575 | McManis et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078655 | Fahrer et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6085030 | Whitehead et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6085255 | Vincent et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6092194 | Touboul | Jul 2000 | A |
6093216 | Adl-Tabatabai et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6101528 | Butt | Aug 2000 | A |
6104716 | Crichton et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6108346 | Doucette et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119122 | Bunnell | Sep 2000 | A |
6134603 | Jones et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6154844 | Touboul et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6157925 | Jenkins et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6157960 | Kaminsky et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6182083 | Scheifler et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185602 | Bayrakeri | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6185611 | Waldo et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189046 | Moore et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192044 | Mack | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199068 | Carpenter | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6199116 | May et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6212578 | Racicot et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6216138 | Wells et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6216158 | Luo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219675 | Pal et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226746 | Scheifler | May 2001 | B1 |
6243716 | Waldo et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6243814 | Matena | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6247091 | Lovett | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253256 | Wollrath et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263350 | Wollrath et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263379 | Atkinson et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269401 | Fletcher et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272559 | Jones et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282295 | Young et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282568 | Sondur et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282581 | Moore et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6292934 | Davidson et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301613 | Ahlstrom et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6321275 | McQuistan et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327677 | Garg et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6339783 | Horikiri | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6343308 | Marchesseault | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6351735 | Deaton et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6360266 | Pettus | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363409 | Hart et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6378001 | Aditham et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385643 | Jacobs et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6408342 | Moore et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6418468 | Ahlstrom et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6463480 | Kikuchi et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6496865 | Sumsion et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505248 | Casper et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6564174 | Ding et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6578074 | Bahlmann | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6603772 | Moussavi et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6604127 | Murphy et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6604140 | Beck et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6654793 | Wollrath et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6704803 | Wilson et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6757262 | Weisshaar et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757729 | Devarakonda et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6801940 | Moran et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6801949 | Bruck et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6804711 | Dugan et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6804714 | Tummalapalli | Oct 2004 | B1 |
7075412 | Reynolds et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7123608 | Scott et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7505453 | Carpenter et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
20010003824 | Schnier | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20010011350 | Zabetian | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20020059212 | Takagi | May 2002 | A1 |
20020073019 | Deaton | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099812 | Davis et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020111814 | Barnett et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030005132 | Nguyen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033280 | Van Den Hamer et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030084204 | Wollrath et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030155415 | Markham et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030191842 | Murphy et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030191984 | Flaherty et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040263319 | Huomo | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050027796 | San Andres et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20080256090 | Dietterich et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20100182934 | Dobbins et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 300 516 | Jan 1989 | EP |
0 351 536 | Jan 1990 | EP |
0 384 339 | Aug 1990 | EP |
0 472 874 | Mar 1992 | EP |
0 474 340 | Mar 1992 | EP |
497 022 | Aug 1992 | EP |
0 555 997 | Aug 1993 | EP |
0 565 849 | Oct 1993 | EP |
0 569 195 | Nov 1993 | EP |
0 625 750 | Nov 1994 | EP |
0 635 792 | Jan 1995 | EP |
0 651 328 | May 1995 | EP |
0 660 231 | Jun 1995 | EP |
0 697 655 | Feb 1996 | EP |
0 718 761 | Jun 1996 | EP |
0 767 432 | Apr 1997 | EP |
0 778 520 | Jun 1997 | EP |
0 794 493 | Sep 1997 | EP |
0 803 810 | Oct 1997 | EP |
0 803 811 | Oct 1997 | EP |
0 805 393 | Nov 1997 | EP |
0 810 524 | Dec 1997 | EP |
0 817 020 | Jan 1998 | EP |
0 817 022 | Jan 1998 | EP |
0 817 025 | Jan 1998 | EP |
0 836 140 | Apr 1998 | EP |
2 253 079 | Aug 1992 | GB |
2 262 825 | Jun 1993 | GB |
2 305 087 | Mar 1997 | GB |
7-168744 | Apr 1995 | JP |
11-45187 | Feb 1999 | JP |
WO9207335 | Apr 1992 | WO |
WO9209948 | Jun 1992 | WO |
WO9325962 | Dec 1993 | WO |
WO9403855 | Feb 1994 | WO |
WO9603692 | Feb 1996 | WO |
WO9610787 | Apr 1996 | WO |
WO9618947 | Jun 1996 | WO |
WO9624099 | Aug 1996 | WO |
WO9802814 | Jan 1998 | WO |
WO9804971 | Feb 1998 | WO |
WO 9917194 | Apr 1999 | WO |
WO 0113228 | Feb 2001 | WO |
WO 0186394 | Nov 2001 | WO |
WO 0190903 | Nov 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Osborn, “The Role of Polymorphism in Schema Evolution in an Object-Oriented Database,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 310-317, Sep. 1989. |
“Consumers Can View, Share Picture On-Line as Kodak Picture Network Goes ‘Live’,” Business Wire, Aug. 25, 1997, pp. 18-19. |
“Eden Project Proposal,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Oct. 1980, Technical Report #80-10-01, cover and Foreword. |
“ISN Dataweb Sells Software, Hardware,” Datamation, Apr. 1, 1996, p. 40. |
“Java (TM) Remote Method Invocation Specification,” Sun Microsystems, Inc., <java.sun.com/products/jdk1.2beta1>, 1997. |
“Kodak DC220 and DC260 Digital Cameras Are Shipping to Retailers Across the Country Cameras Are Optimized for USB Interface Supported in Windows 98,” Business Wire, Jun. 24, 1998, pp. 42-44. |
“Kodak demonstrates leadership across entire photographic category,” M2 Presswire, Feb. 13, 1998, pp. 31-35. |
“Kodak PhotoNet Online Makes It a Snap to Share Summer Photos,” PR Newswire, Jul. 2, 1998, pp. 63-64. |
“Kodak Picture Network Sends Prints Home From the Holidays,” Business Wire, Dec. 29, 1997, pp. 58-60. |
“Photo processing made easy on the Internet; Storm Software and PictureVision team up with Konica Corp.,” Business Wire, Feb. 22, 1996, pp. 3-4. |
“Seeing your photos a whole new way,” Business Wire, Dec. 12, 1996, pp. 9-10. |
“Transparent Network Computing,” Locus Computing Corporation, Jan. 5, 1995. |
“Webwatch: MCI Announces Internet Access,”, Boardwatch Magazine, Jan. 1995. |
Administrator's Guide, Netscape Enterprise Server, Version 3.0, Netscape Communications Corp., 1998. |
Agha et al., “Actorspaces: An Open Distributed Programming Paradigm,” University of Illinois, Report No. UIUCDCS-R-92-1766, Open Systems Laboratory TR No. 8, pp. 1-12, Nov. 1992. |
Ahmed et al., “A Program Building Tool for Parallel Applications,” Yale University, pp. 1-23, Dec. 1, 1993. |
Aldrich et al., “Providing Easier Access to Remote Objects in Client-Server Systems,” System Sciences, 1998, Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii Internat'l. Conference, Jan. 6-9, 1998, pp. 366-375. |
Aldrich et al., “Providing Easier Access to Remote Objects in Distributed Systems,” Calif. Institute of Technology, www.cs.caltech.edu/%7Ejedi/paper/jedipaper.html, Nov. 21, 1997. |
Alexander et al., “Active Bridging,” Proceedings of the ACM/SIGCOMM'97 Conference, Cannes, France, Sep. 1997. |
Almes et al., “Edmas: A Locally Distributed Mail System,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 83-07-01, Jul. 7, 1983, Abstract & pp. 1-17. |
Almes et al., “Research in Integrated Distributed Computing,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Oct. 1979, pp. 1-42. |
Almes et al., “The Eden System: A Technical Review,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 83-10-05, Oct. 1983, pp. 1-25. |
Almes, “Integration and Distribution in the Eden System,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 83-01-02, Jan. 19, 1983, pp. 1-18 & Abstract. |
Almes, “The Evolution of the Eden Invocation Mechanism,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 83-01-03, Jan. 19, 1983, pp. 1-14 & Abstract. |
Anderson et al., “Persistent Linda: Linda+Transactions+Query Processing,” Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Fault Tolerant Systems, pp. 93-109, 1991. |
Anonymous, “Change-Notification Service for Shared Files,” IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 77-82, XP002108713, New York, US, Aug. 1993. |
Anonymous, “Resource Preemption for Priority Scheduling,” IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 16, No. 6, p. 1931, XP002109435 New York, US, Nov. 1973. |
Arnold, Ken, “The Jini Architecture: Dynamic Services in a Flexible Network,” Sun Microsystems, Inc., Proceedings of the 36th ACM IEEE Design Automation Conference, Jun. 1999, pp. 157-162. |
Bandrowski, “Stores Without Doors: Kiosks Generate New Profits,” Corporate Computing, Oct. 1992, pp. 193-195. |
Beech et al., “Object Databases as Generalizations of Relational Databases,” Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 13, Nos. 1/3, pp. 221-230, Amsterdam, NL, Jan. 1991. |
Begole et al., “Transparent Sharing of Java Applets: A Replicated Approach,” Oct. 1997, pp. 55-65. |
Bertino et al., “Object-Oriented Database Management Systems: Concepts and Issues,” Computer, vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 33-47, Los Alamitos, CA, Apr. 1991. |
Betz et al., “Interoperable Objects: Laying the Foundation for Distributed Object Computing,” Dr. Dobb's Journal, vol. 19, No. 11, p. 18(13), Oct. 1994. |
Bevan et al., “An Efficient Reference Counting Solution to the Distributed Garbage Collection Problem,” Parallel Computing, NL, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 179-192, Jan. 1989. |
Birrell et al., “Distributed Garbage Collection for Network Objects,” Digital Systems Research Center, No. 116, pp. 1-18, Dec. 15, 1993. |
Birrell et al., “Grapevine: An Exercise in Distributed Computing,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 260-274, Apr. 1982. |
Birrell et al., “Implementing Remote Procedure Calls,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 39-59, Feb. 1984. |
Birrell et al., “Network Objects,” DEC SRC Research Report 115, Feb. 28, 1994. |
Birrell et al., “Network Objects,” Operating Systems Review, 27(5), pp. 217-230, Dec. 1993. |
Black et al., “A Language for Distributed Programming,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 86-02-03, Feb. 1986, p. 10. |
Black et al., “Distribution and Abstract Types in Emerald,” University of Washington, Technical Report No. 85-08-05, Aug. 1985, pp. 1-10. |
Black et al., “Object Structure in the Emerald System,” University of Washington, Technical Report 86-04-03, Apr. 1986, pp. 1-14. |
Black et al., “The Eden Project: A Final Report,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 86-11-01, Nov. 1986, pp. 1-28. |
Black, “Supporting Distributed Applications: Experience with Eden,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 85-03-02, Mar. 1985, pp. 1-21. |
Black, “The Eden Programming Language,” Department of Computer Science, FR-35, University of Washington, Technical Report 85-09-01, Sep. 1985 (Revised Dec. 1985), pp. 1-19. |
Black, “The Eden Project: Overview and Experiences,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, EUUG, Autumn '86 Conference Proceedings, Manchester, UK, Sep. 22-25, 1986, pp. 177-189. |
Braine et al., “Object-Flow,” 1997, pp. 418-419. |
Bruno, “Working the Web,” Data Communications, Apr. 1997, pp. 50-60. |
Burns et al., “An Analytical Study of Opportunistic Lease Renewal,” Distributed Computing Systems, 21st International Conference, pp. 146-153, Apr. 2000. |
Cannon et al., “Adding Fault-Tolerant Transaction Processing to LINDA,” Software-Practice and Experience, vol. 24(5), pp. 449-466, May 1994. |
Cardelli, “Obliq, a Lightweight Language for Network Objects,” Digital SRC, pp. 1-37, Nov. 5, 1993. |
Carriero et al., “Distributed Data Structures in Linda,” Principles of Programming Language, pp. 1-16,1986. |
Carriero et al., “Distributed Data Structures in Linda,” Yale Research Report YALEU/DCS/RR-438, Nov. 1985. |
Chung et al., “A ‘Tiny’ Pascal Compiler: Part 1: The P-Code Interpreter,” BYTE Publications, Inc., Sep. 1978. |
Chung et al., “A ‘Tiny’ Pascal Compiler: Part 2: The P-Compiler,” BYTE Publications, Inc., Oct. 1978. |
Ciancarini et al., “Coordinating Distributed Applets with Shade/Java,” Feb. 1998, pp. 130-138. |
Cohen, “Electronic Commerce,” USC/Information Sciences Institute, Oct. 1989. |
Conhaim, “Online shopping: a beginner's guide; includes related listing of videotex services,” Link-Up, vol. 5, No. 6, p. 32, Nov. 1988. |
Coulouris et al., “Distributed Systems Concepts and Designs,” Second Ediition, Addison-Wesley, 1994. |
Dave et al., “Proxies, Application Interface, and Distributed Systems,” Proceedings International Workshop on Object Orientation in Operating Systems, pp. 212-220, Sep. 24, 1992. |
Delcambre et al., “Simulation of the Object Flow Model: A Conceptual Modeling Language for Object-Driven Applications,” 1993, pp. 216-225. |
Design Project #2, Electronic Shopping at MIT, MIT Class 6.033 Handout 23, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://web.mit.edu/6.033/1995/handouts/html/h23.html, Spring 1995, pp. 1-6. |
Deux et al., “The O2 System,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 34-48, Oct. 1, 1991. |
Dijkstra, “Self-stabilizing Systems in Spite of Distributed Control,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 17, No. 11, pp. 643-644, Nov. 1974. |
Dolev et al., “On the Minimal Synchronism Needed for Distributed Consensus,” Journal of the ACM, vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 77-97, Jan. 1987. |
Dollimore et al., “The Design of a System for Distributing Shared Objects,” The Computer Journal, No. 6, Cambridge, GB, Dec. 1991. |
Dourish, “A Divergence-Based Model of Synchrony and Distribution in Collaborative Systems,” Xerox Technical Report EPC-1194-102, pp. 1-10, 1994. |
Drexler et al., “Incentive Engineering for Computational Resource Management,” The Ecology of Computation, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 231-266, 1988. |
Droms, “RFC 1541 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol,” <http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/rfc1541.html>, pp. 1-33, Oct. 1993. |
Ellsworth, “Boom Town,” Internet World, Jun. 1995, pp. 33-35. |
Emms, “A Definition of an Access Control Systems Language,” Computer Standards and Interfaces, vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 443-454, Jan. 1, 1987. |
Estrin, “Inter-Organization Networks: Implications of Access Control Requirements for Interconnection Protocols,” ACM, 1986, pp. 254-263. |
Fleisch et al., “High Performance Distributed Objects Using Distributed Shared Memory & Remote Method Invocation,” System Sciences, 1998, Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii Internat'l. Conference, Jan. 6-9, 1998, pp. 574-578. |
Fleischer, “SkyMall's ‘Supplier Network’ Takes Flight”, Retailtech, the Technology Magazine for Retail Executives, Apr. 1997. |
Foley, “Managing Campus-Wide Information Systems: Issues and Problems,” Capitalizing on Communication, ACM SIGUCCS XVII, 1989, pp. 169-174. |
Fryxell, “eaasySABRE,” Link-Up, May/Jun. 1996, pp. 10-11. |
Gardner, “Kodak Follows Startup Into Online Photo Processing Business,” Internet World, Sep. 8, 1997, pp. 5-6. |
Gelernter et al., “Parallel Programming in Linda,” Yale University, pp. 1-21, Jan. 1985. |
Gelernter, “Generative Communication in Linda,” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 80-112, Jan. 1985. |
Gogan et al., “Open Market, Inc.: Managing in a Turbulent Environment,” Harvard Business School Publishing, Aug. 29, 1996, pp. 1-30. |
Goldberg et al., “Smalltalk-80—The Language and its Implementation,” Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 1983 (reprinted with corrections, Jul. 1985), pp. 1-720. |
Gosling et al., “The Java (TM) Language Specification,” Addison-Wesley, 1996. |
Gottlob et al., “Extending Object-Oriented Systems with Roles,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 268-296, Jul. 1996. |
Gray et al., “Leases: An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Mechanism for Distributed File Cache Consistency,” ACM, pp. 202-210, 1989. |
Gray et al., “Leases: An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Mechanism for Distributed File Cache Consistency,” Proceedings of the 12th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 202-210, 1989. |
Guth, “JavaOne: Sun to Expand Java Distributed Computing Effort,” <http://www.sunworld.com/swol-02-1998/swol-02-sunspots.html>, XP-002109935, p. 1, Feb. 20, 1998. |
Guyennet et al., “A New Consistency Protocol Implemented in the CAliF System,” IEEE, 1094-7256/97, pp. 82-87, 1997. |
Guyennet et al., “Distributed Shared Memory Layer for Cooperative Work Applications,” IEEE, 0742-1303/97, pp. 72-78, 1997. |
Hamilton et al., “Subcontract: A Flexible Base for Distributed Programming,” Proceedings of 14th Symposium of Operating System Principles, Dec. 1993. |
Hamilton, “Java and the Shift to Net-Centric Computing,” Computer, pp. 31-39, Aug. 1996. |
Harris et al., “Proposal for a General Java Proxy Class for Distributed Systems and Other Uses,” Netscape Communications Corp., Jun. 25, 1997. |
Hartman et al., “Liquid Software: A New Paradigm for Networked Systems,” Technical Report 96-11, Department of Comp. Sci., Univ. of Arizona, Jun. 1996. |
Hodges, Douglas, “Managing Object Lifetimes in OLE,” Aug. 25, 1994, pp. 1-41. |
Holman et al., “The Eden Shared Calendar System,” Department of Computer Science, FR-35, University of Washington, Technical Report 85-05-02, Jun. 22, 1985, pp. 1-14. |
Hoshi et al., “Allocation of the Cross-Connect Function in Leased Circuit Networks,” 1992, ICC'92, conference record, SUPERCOMM/ICC '92, A New World of Communications, IEEE International Conference, pp. 1408-1412. |
Howard et al., “Scale and Performance in a Distributed File System,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 51-81, Feb. 1988. |
Hsu, “Reimplementing Remote Procedure Calls,” University of Washington, Thesis, Mar. 22, 1985, pp. 1-106. |
Hunt, “IDF: A Graphical Data Flow Programming Language for Image Processing and Computer Vision,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 351-360, Los Angeles, Nov. 4-7, 1990. |
Hutchinson, “Emerald: An Object-Based Language for Distributed Programming,” a Dissertation, University of Washington, 1987, pp. 1-107. |
IBM (TM) Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “Object Location Algorithm,” vol. 36, No. 09B, pp. 257-258, Sep. 1993. |
IBM (TM) Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “Retrieval of Qualified Variables Using Extendible Hashing,” vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 301-303, Dec. 1993. |
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “Local Network Monitoring to Populate Access Agent Directory,” vol. 36, No. 09A, pp. 403-405, Sep. 1993. |
IBM, “Chapter 6—Distributed SOM (DSOM),” SOMobjects Developer Toolkit Users Guide, Version 2.1, pp. 6-1-6-90, Oct. 1994. |
Israel et al., “Authentication in Office System Internetworks,” ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 1, No. 3, Jul. 1983, pp. 193-210. |
Jacob, “The Use of Distributed Objects and Dynamic Interfaces in a Wide-Area Transaction Environment,” SIGCOMMn '95 Workshop on Middleware: Cambridge, Mass., Aug. 1995, pp. 1-3. |
Jaworski, “Java 1.1 Developer's Guide, 2nd Edition,” Sams.net, 1997. |
Jones et al., “Garbage Collection: Algorithms for Automatic Dynamic Memory Management,” pp. 165-175, John Wiley & Sons, 1996. |
Jul et al., “Fine-Grained Mobility in the Emerald System,” University of Washington, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 6, No. 1, Feb. 1988, pp. 109-133. |
Jul, “Object Mobility in a Distributed Object-Oriented System,” a Dissertation, University of Washington, 1989, pp. 1-154 (1 page Vita). |
Kambhatla et al., “Recovery with Limited Replay: Fault-Tolerant Processes in Linda,” Oregon Graduate Institute, Technical Report CSIE 90-019, pp. 1-16, Sep. 1990. |
Kay et al., “An Overview of the Raleigh Object-Oriented Database System,” ICL Technical Journal, vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 780-798, Oxford, GB, Nov. 1991. |
Keller, “Smart Catalogs and Virtual Catalogs,” Proceedings of the First USENIX Workshop of Electronic Commerce, USENIX Association, Jul. 11-12, 1995, pp. 125-131. |
Klein et al., “TRADE'ex: The Stock Exchange of the Computer Industry,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 1996, pp. 1-14. |
Kodak Photonet FAQ, PhotoNet Online, Jun. 14, 2002, pp. 1-3. |
Kolodner et al., “Atomic Garbage Collection: Managing a Stable Heap,” ACM, 1989, pp. 15-25. |
Koshizuka et al., “Window Real-Objects: A Distributed Shared Memory for Distributed Implementation of GUI Applications,” Nov. 1993, pp. 237-247. |
Kougiouris et al., “Support for Space Efficient Object Invocation in Spring,” Sep. 1994. |
Kramer, “NETWATCH; The AJC's Daily Online Guide; Get the picture: Kodak will send photos to Web,” The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Sec. Features, p. 08C, Jun. 5, 1997. |
Krasner et al., “Smalltalk-80: Bits of History, Words of Advice,” 1983, Xerox Corporation, pp. 1-344. |
Krasner, “The Smalltalk-80 Virtual Machine,” BYTE Publications Inc., pp. 300-320, Aug. 1991. |
Lamport et al., “The Byzantine Generals Problem,” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 382-401, Jul. 1982. |
Lampson et al., “Authentication in Distributed Systems: Theory and Practice,” ACM Transactions n Computer Systems, vol. 10, No. 4, Nov. 1992, pp. 265-310. |
Lansky, “Without APS, Photo Life Goes on Via Internet,” Photographic Trade News, Aug. 1996, pp. 19-23. |
Lavana et al., “Executable Workflows: A Paradigm for Collaborative Design on the Internet,” Jun. 1997, 6 pages. |
Lewis, “Pacific Bell, MCI to Expand Internet Service,” The New York Times, sec. D, col. 1 at 3, Mar. 28, 1995. |
LightSurf Instant Imaging—Press Releases, “Kodak and LightSurf Collaborate on Kodak Picture Center Online,” LifeSurf Technologies Inc., Jun. 14, 2002, pp. 1-3. |
LINDA Database Search, pp. 1-68, Jul. 20, 1995. |
Lindholm et al., “The Java (TM) Virtual Machine Specification,” Addison Wesley, 1996. |
Liskov et al., “Distributed Object Management in Thor,” International Workshop on Distributed Object Management, p. 12, 1992. |
Louwerse et al., “Data Protection Aspects in an Integrated Hospital Information System,” North-Holland Computers & Security 3, 1984, pp. 286-294. |
McDaniel, “An Analysis of a Mesa Instruction Set,” Xerox Corporation, May 1982. |
McEnaney, “Point-and-Click Memory Sharing; Launches PhotoNet online digital photography and imaging services, ” Photographic Trade News, Sec. p. 23, Jan. 1997. |
McGrath, “Discovery and Its Discontents: Discovery Protocols for Ubiquitous Computing,” Presented at Center for Excellence in Space Data and Information Science, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Apr. 5, 2000. |
Miller, “Web posting as a photo processing option,” USA Today, Section: Life, p. 17D, Dec. 13, 1996. |
Mitchell et al., “An Overview of the Spring System,” Feb. 1994. |
Mitchell et al., “Mesa Language Manual,” Xerox Corporation, Palo Alto Research Center, 1978. |
Morris et al., “Andrew: A Distributed Personal Computing Environment,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 29, No. 3, Mar. 1986, pp. 184-201. |
Mullender, “Distributed Systems,” Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1993. |
Mummert et al., “Long Term Distributed File Reference Tracing: Implementation and Experience,” Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science, pp. 1-28, Nov. 1994. |
MUX-Elektronik, Java 1.1 Interactive Course, www.lls.se/˜mux/javaic.html, 1995. |
O'Mahony, “Security Considerations in a Network Management Environment,” IEEE Network, May/Jun. 1994, pp. 12-17. |
Oppen et al., “The Clearinghouse: A Decentralized Agent for Locating Names Objects in a Distributed Environment,” ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 1, No. 3, Jul. 1983, pp. 230-253. |
Orfali et al., “The Essential Distributed Objects Survival Guide,” Chapter 11: Corba Commercial ORBs, pp. 203-215, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996. |
Osborn, “The Role of Polymorphism in Schema Evolution in an Object-Oriented Database,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 1, No. 3, Sep. 1989, pp. 310-317. |
Ousterhout et al., “The Sprite Network Operating System,” Computer, IEEE, pp. 23-36, Feb. 1988. |
Petersen, “New But Not Improved, ” Direct Magazine, Nov. 1995. |
Pier, “A Retrospective on the Dorado, a High-Performance Personal Computer,” IEEE Conference Proceedings, the 10th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 1983. |
Pier, “A Retrospective on the Dorado, a High-Performance Personal Computer,” Xerox Corporation, Aug. 1983. |
Pinakis, “Using Linda as the Basis of an Operating System Microkernel,” University of Western Australia, Department of Computer Science, pp. 1-165, Aug. 1993. |
Press Release, “Sun Goes Live With the Kodak Picture Network,” Sun Microsystems, Inc., Jun. 14, 2002, pp. 1-2. |
Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Dec. 14-16, 1981, ACM, Special Interest Group on Operating Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 15, No. 5, Dec. 1981, ACM Order No. 534810. |
Proudfoot, “Replects: Data Replication in the Eden System,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report No. TR-85-12-04, Dec. 1985, pp. 1-156. |
Pu, “Replication and Nested Transaction in the Eden Distributed System,” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, Aug. 6, 1986, pp. 1-179 (1 page Vita). |
Raeder, “Is there a Prodigy in your future?,” Database Searcher, vol. 5, No. 6, p. 18, Jun. 1989. |
Ramm et al., “Exu—A System for Secure Delegation of Authority on an Insecure Network,” Ninth System Administration Conference, 1995 LISA IX, Sep. 17-22, 1995, pp. 89-93. |
Riggs et al., “Pickling State in the Java (TM) System,” USENIX Association Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems, XP-002112719, pp. 241-250, Jun. 17-21, 1996. |
Rosenberry et al., “Understanding DCE,” Chapters 1-3, 6, 1992. |
Satyanarayanan, “Integrating Security in a Large Distributed System,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 7, No. 3, Aug. 1989, pp. 247-280. |
Schroeder et al., “Experience with Grapevine: The Growth of a Distributed System,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 2, No. 1, Feb. 1984, pp. 3-23. |
Senn, “Capitalizing on Electronic Commerce: The Role of the Internet in Electronic Markets,” Information Systems Management, Summer 1996, pp. 15-24. |
Sharrott et al., “ObjectMap: Integrating High Performance Resources into a Distributed Object-oriented Environment,” ICODP, 1995. |
Steinke, “Design Aspects of Access Control in a Knowledge Base System,” Computers & Security, 10, 1991, pp. 612-625. |
Stern, “Industry Net,” Link-Up, Mar./Apr. 1995, p. 10. |
Stevenson, “Token-Based Consistency of Replicated Servers,” IEEE, CH2686-4/89/0000/0179, pp. 179-183, 1989. |
Tanenbaum et al., “Distributed Operating Systems,” Computing Surveys, vol. 17, No. 4, Dec. 1985, pp. 419-470. |
The Wall Street Journal, “Barclays Is Opening an ‘Electronic Mall’ for Internet Shopping,” Tech. & Health Section at B2, Jun. 1, 1995. |
The Wall Street Journal, “Prodigy Plans to Announce Internet ‘Electronic Mail’,” Tech. Section at B5, Nov. 27, 1995. |
Thompson, “Regular Expression Search Algorithm,” Communications of the ACM, vol. II, No. 6, p. 149 et seq., Jun. 1968. |
Trehan et al., “Toolkit for Shared Hypermedia on a Distributed Object Oriented Architecture,” 1993, pp. 1-8. |
Trommer, “Thomas Unveils Online Purchasing Network—Eases Product Sourcing and Ordering Through EDI,” Electronic Buyers' News at 60, Dec. 11, 1995. |
Van Den Berg et al., “Advanced Topics of a Computer Center Audit,” North-Holland Computers & Security 3, 1984, pp. 171-185. |
Van Der Lans, “Data Security in a Relational Database Environment,” North-Holland Computers & Security 5, 1986, pp. 128-134. |
Venners, “Jini Technology, Out of the Box,” JAVAWORLD, ′Online!, pp. 1-4, Dec. 1998. |
Waldo et al., “Events in an RPC Based Distributed System,” Proceedings of the 1995 USENIX Technical Conference, Proceedings USENIX Winter 1995 Technical Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 16-20, pp. 131-142, Jan. 1995. |
Welz, “New Deals: A ripening Internet market, secure systems and digital currency are reshaping global commerce,” Internet World, Jun. 1995, pp. 36-41. |
Wilson et al., “Design of the Opportunistic Garbage Collector,” Proceedings of the Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications Conference, New Orleans, vol. 24, No. 10, Oct. 1989. |
Wobber et al., “Authentication in the Taos Operating System,” ACM, 1993, pp. 256-269. |
Wollrath et al., “A Distributed Object Model for the Java (TM) System,” USENIX Association, Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems, Jun. 17-21, 1996. |
Wu, “A Type System for an Object-Oriented Database System,” Proceedings of the International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Tokyo, Japan, pp. 333-338, Sep. 11-13, 1991. |
Wyatt, “Netscape Enterprise Server,” Prima Publishing, 1996. |
Yemini et al., “Towards Programmable Networks,” IFIP/IEEE International Workshop on Distributed Systems: Operations and Management, L'Aquila, Italy, Oct. 1996. |
Yin et al., “Using Leases to Support Server Driven Consistency in Large-Scale Systems,” Computer Services Department, University of Texas at Austin, p. 285-294, May 26-28, 1998. |
Yin et al., “Volume Leases for Consistency in Large-Scale Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge & Data Engineering, vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 563-576, Jul./Aug. 1999. |
“Java (TM) Object Serialization Specification”, Sun Microsystems, Inc., XP-002242372, <www.dei.estg.iplei.pt/P3/N/material/extra/serial-spec-JDK1—2.pdf>, 1998. |
“Java.io ObjectInputStream”, XP-002243027, <java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.1/docs/guide/serialization/spec>, 1998, p. 1230-1232, 1263-1264 & 1283. |
Opyrchal et al., “Efficient Object Serialization in Java”, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, May 5, 1999. |
Auto-ID Center, “Auto-ID Savant Specification 1.0,” Version of Oct. 13, 2003 (58 pages). |
H.A. Smith and J.D. McKeen, “Object-Oriented Technology: Getting Beyond the Hype,” ACM, Spring 1996, vol. 27, pp. 20-29. |
Java Remote Method Invocation Specification, JDK 1.1 FCS, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Feb. 1997, chapters 5 and 7. |
Jennings, N.R. et al., “Using Intelligent Agents to Manage Business Processes,” Dept. Electronic Engineering, Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, U.K., XP-002254546, 1996, 16 pages. |
Wollrath et al., “JAVA-Centric Distributed Computing,” IEEE Mirco May/Jun. 1997, pp. 44-53. |
Amitabh, D., et al., Proxies, Application Interfaces, and Distributed Systems, IEEE, pp. 212-220, 1992. |
Wollrath, A., et al., “Java-Centric Distributed Computing,” IEEE Micro, pp. 44-53, 1997. |
Li, Sing et al., “Professional Jini”, Chapter 7, Aug. 2000. |
Spiteri, M.D., et al., “An architecture to support storage and retrieval of events”, 1998. |
“Dynamic code downloading using RMI”, http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/mi/codebase.html, 2003. |
“Passing Proxies as Parameters to Methods and Return Values from Methods”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 41, No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 89-92. |
Anonymous, “Jini Distributed Leasing Specification”, Sun Microsystems, Jan. 1999, XP-002209076. |
Lemay, Laura, et al. “Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days, Professional Reference Edition”, 1996, Sams.Net Publishing. |
Plainfosse, D., et al., “A Survey of Distributed Garbage Collection Techniques”, http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/plainfosse95survey.html, Sep. 1995, pp. 1-33, XP002126410. |
Stoyenko, Alexander, “SUPRA-RPC: Subprogram Parameters in Remote Procedure Calls,” Software Practice and Experience, vol. 24, No. 1, Jan. 1994, pp. 27-49. |
Subramanian, Sakthi et al., “Automatic Verification of Object Code Against Source Code,” IEEE, 1996, pp. 46-55. |
Wollrath, Ann, et al., “Simple Activation for Distributed Objects”, Proceedings of the Usenix Conference, Jun. 26, 1995, pp. 1-11. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20030191842 A1 | Oct 2003 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60076048 | Feb 1998 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09915645 | Jul 2001 | US |
Child | 10408365 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09417908 | Oct 1999 | US |
Child | 09915645 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09044931 | Mar 1998 | US |
Child | 09417908 | US |