Patent Grant
7949997
The present invention claims priority from United Kingdom Patent Application No. 0502837.8, filed on Feb. 11, 2005, in the United Kingdom Patent Office.
1. Technical Field
The present invention relates to the field of data processing, and particularly to the field of integrating a commercial off the shelf (COTS) software application into an existing information technology (IT) infrastructure.
2. Related Art
Many users of IT infrastructures can no longer afford to write a new business application each time their business changes. They prefer to buy a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) package and then integrate it with their existing systems.
According to the current state of the art, integration projects will typically make use of integration software and tooling. The integration team analyses each system in turn to determine the structure and content of the messages that need to be passed in and out of it in order to make the system perform certain operations. They then use the integration tooling and runtime to create components that route and transform messages, events and requests that flow between the systems at appropriate times to form the combined “solution”.
Increasingly, the cost of integrating systems is becoming greater than the cost of the software packages themselves. There are a number of reasons for this.
The systems being integrated (new and old) belong to different areas of ownership within the organization. This means inter-organizational teams need to cooperate since both the background information for the project and the ownership of design artifacts is distributed.
Pre-existing/COTS-based systems are typically not that well understood and often the only way to discover how they really work is to run them. This means new knowledge and requirements relating to the integration code around these systems can be discovered very late in the development cycle. This can lead to significant levels of rework. Most integration tooling operates at a very detailed, low-level of analysis.
There is no single set of tooling that spans the entire integration solution and so there is always an issue of keeping multiple copies of the data in different tools synched up.
All-in-all this is time-consuming, error prone and there is no “big-picture” view enabling high-level reasoning about the end-to-end solution. The high cost and unpredictable nature of integration projects is a concern to the Services business.
One area in which such integration has been explored in the prior art involves the well known standard architecture known as the Model Driven Architecture. The Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) concepts from the Object Management Group (OMG) describe the idea that you can create a model of a system and generate code from the model. The commercial exploitation of MDA in the early prior art focuses on generating the code for a component from a model of its behaviour. This approach is often referred to as a Software factory. A good example description is available here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/architecture/overview/softwarefactories/
Some later prior art in this area involved using MDA modeling techniques to integrate a new COTS application into an existing IT infrastructure. See, for example, the Kabira Adapter Factory, and see also the Object Management Group's web pages describing the use of MDA to perform this integration. However, such prior art assumed that all of the requirements of the COTS application and IT infrastructure were known and fixed at the time when the integration process begins.
The prior art is therefore inflexible and does not take account of changing needs over time.
In addition to COTS applications, which usually need no customization, this problem also exists when integrating an existing software application that needs to be customized, into an existing IT infrastructure.
The present invention provides a method for performing integration of a software application into an existing information technology (IT) infrastructure, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) creating an inventory, using a Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) approach from the Object Management Group (OMG), the inventory including information about each component of the IT infrastructure and information about the software application being integrated into the IT infrastructure, and information about how each component communicates with each other component of the IT infrastructure, and information about how the software application communicates with each component, wherein each element of information in the inventory has a single source and owner;
(b) using the inventory to analyze the existing IT infrastructure and the software application during the integration of the software application into the existing IT infrastructure;
(c) from the contents of the inventory, using the MDA approach from the OMG, generating artifacts that execute the integration; and
(d) from the contents of the inventory, using the MDA approach from the OMG, generating test programs to verify that the integration is complete and correct;
wherein the inventory is progressively updated during and after the integration process as more information about the IT infrastructure or the software application is developed.
The present invention provides an apparatus for performing integration of a software application into an existing information technology (IT) infrastructure, said apparatus comprising:
(a) means for creating an inventory, using a Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) approach from the Object Management Group (OMG), the inventory including information about each component of the IT infrastructure and information about the software application being integrated into the IT infrastructure, and information about how each component communicates with each other component of the IT infrastructure, and information about how the software application communicates with each component; wherein each element of information in the inventory has a single source and owner; and
(b) means for using the inventory to analyze the existing IT infrastructure and the software application during the integration of the software application into the existing IT infrastructure;
(c) means for, from the contents of the inventory, using the MDA approach from the OMG, generating artifacts that execute the integration; and
(d) means for, from the contents of the inventory, using the MDA approach from the OMG, generating test programs to verify that the integration is complete and correct;
wherein the inventory is progressively updated during and after the integration process as more information about the IT infrastructure or the software application is developed.
The present invention involves iteratively generating/adapting a Model Driven Software Factory that is customized to the needs of a particular client engagement. The process of generating the software factory is iterative so that the software factory can be modified during the client engagement as new knowledge and requirements are unearthed.
In addition, the factory is referred to as a solution factory since it covers all aspects of the generation of the solution and not just the runtime artifacts. The solution factory has a philosophy that all information has a single source. There is no need to support round-tripping through a tool chain.
At the core of the solution factory is a single Inventory where the contents follow a write-once-read-many philosophy as follows. The inventory is populated from a variety of tools using a controlled publish process that ensures each item in the Inventory has an identifiable single source and owner. This eliminates the need to support round-tripping through a tool chain since all updates occur in the tool that generated the original model. These updates are then republished to the inventory in controlled versions. It also established clear ownership rules for the creation and maintenance of the data. This is a key requirement in integration environments where the information needed to complete the integration is discovered throughout the lifetime of the project. Often new knowledge contradicts what was known before so the ability to maintain a consistent view across the organization is a key success factor. In addition, the information needed to build an integration artifact typically needs to come from each of the systems being integrated. Having clear ownership rules define what information each system owner is responsible for providing.
The inventory contains information from many different knowledge domains of the system (business, technical, operations) that are linked together offering a full definition of how the business connects to the IT systems. It becomes a replacement of the systems documentation which retains its accuracy since the system artifacts are generated from it.
The structure and format of the Inventory is consistent to allow standard tools, such as inference engines, to explore and derive new information about the system.
More significantly, having information from multiple domains in a single, linked and coherent format means transformations can generate system artifacts with traceability information embedded in them that links each one to its relevant business concepts. At runtime, the traceability information can be included in events, messages and diagnostics.
The Inventory becomes a key resource for the business and survives beyond the life of the development project and is used in the operation of the integrated IT system.
The correctness of the solution factory is self-checking due to instrumentation code that is added to the generated artifacts and test environment ensuring the generated code matches the requirements.
The whole method and factory is available for the maintenance of the solution.
The solution can thus be used to integrate a software application (which could be a COTS application or which could be an application which requires more customization than a COTS application) into an existing IT infrastructure.
The Inventory is used to store all of the information needed by the solution factory to generate the required Solution.
An integration project needs information from a variety of sources. For example, each organization that owns a system needs to provide information about that system. There are also different domains of information required, ranging from the business level information right down to the format of messages that flow around the network. The diagram in
Within each domain there are many instances of different types of concepts with relationships between them.
For example, the Data Dictionary domain could store business type information such as the fact that a customer object is used in the IT infrastructure and the customer object should specify the name and address of a particular customer. No particular customer information is specified in this domain, since this domain is just a dictionary of the kinds of terms that are used in a business.
The Data Model domain would specify specific examples, such as, Larry's car insurance. The Services Directory domain would specify which particular services are exposed, such as a credit check service, where a potential customer of a car insurance business could have his credit checked.
Moving further down the domain structure, we move away from the business-oriented subject matter and move more towards the physical implementation requirements of the various components of the IT infrastructure. For example, the Message Dictionary domain tells you that a particular message which is to be passed from one specific component to another is an MQ (message queuing) message. Further, the System Directory domain specifies where a particular component is physically implemented (i.e., which server a particular piece of software is running on).
The Inventory has a standard structure that allows concepts to be represented and connected together. For example, it would contain the information shown in the diagram of
Where Inventory Entry represents an abstract entry in the Inventory. Each Inventory Entry may have a number of Attributes associated with it.
There are two types of Inventory Entry: Provenance and Inventory Asset. Provenance provides information about the source of the Inventory Asset—for example, which view it came from, the owner, the date added, the version number. Inventory Asset describes a piece of data that is relevant to the project. There are two types of Inventory Assets: Concept and Relationship.
Concept represents an object from the integration environment. It may be a standard object, or something specific to this project. There are four main types of concept shown. More could be added during factory customization.
List is a list of related Instances.
Instance is a description of a
n object we wish to describe in the inventory.
Class describes the class/category of an Instance—for example, Service, Operation, Message, . . . .
Domain describes a knowledge domain of the Class.
Relationship describes a relationship between two or more Entities
Architectural Pattern for the Generated Solution Factory (VITA)
The Inventory is part of the VITA architectural pattern. There are four parts to it, as shown in
The Views provide the means to create, view, and update controlled subsets of the contents of the inventory. A view is typically maintained using a standard tool. It represents a particular user (or group of users) view of the system. Different groups can (and typically do!) use different tools to create their own particular view(s). So one team could define their message structures using XML Schema and another team could use UML for the same task. The Transformations (which may need to pull information that originated in more than one view) are protected from this variation by the Inventory.
The Inventory stores the data from each model. It supports versioning, access control and assumes that ownership of the contents is distributed. The inventory is populated by Importers. An Importer is part of a View. It takes selected data from the View tooling, converts it to the Inventory format and publishes it to the Inventory. This process is controlled by the owner of the View.
A Transformation reads a selected subset of the data from the Inventory and combines it with a template to generate an Artifact.
An Artifact is a “document” that is directly useful to the project. It could be a report or runtime code/XML or test program.
Models of each aspect of the system are authored using the data-owner's favorite tool. The model file created is considered the master and will always be updated using this tool. There is no need to support round-tripping through a tool chain. When a correct version of the model is complete, an importer is run to re-format the contents of the model into the inventory.
An embodiment of the Inventory is based on the W3C Resource Definition Framework (RDF) and RDF Schema. This technology makes it easy to incrementally add to the content of the inventory
The transforms perform these sorts of tasks
Collect Requirements
The integration team collects requirements for the project. This identifies the organizations, systems and interactions needed between the systems. Each iteration through this node enhances the team's understanding of the Solution.
Customize Factory
Whenever a new type of artifact is identified or a test fails because of a manufacturing fault, the factory is Customized. Examples of customizations includes:
The content of each view is examined and the rules/transforms for mapping from its key types to the inventory are defined in an Importer. This is a key step in validating the solution factory because it identifies missing information and clarifies ownership boundaries and responsibilities.
Populate Inventory through Views
The Importers are run by the View owner.
Generate System Artifacts and Generate Test Artifacts
The solution factory transformations are run to generate both the system (runtime and documentation) and test artifacts. These artifacts contain sufficient instrumentation to validate their behavior against the requirements. The system artifacts, which may comprise runtime code, are configured to execute integration of the software application into the existing IT infrastructure.
Validate Artifacts
The system artifacts are exercised using the test artifacts. The instrumentation is used to verify that the system artifacts meet the requirements. Two types of errors can be detected: manufacturing errors (caused by an error in the solution factory) and missing requirements
Run-Time Solution
The solution is ready to deploy—it can be enhanced by iterating back to Collect Requirements. For example, the inventory may be progressively updated during and after the integration process as more information about the IT infrastructure or the software application is developed.
Ensuring Self-Validating Feedback Loop
The validation of the transformations that are performed by the solution factory are shown in
Since the artifacts have been generated from the inventory, instrumentation makes it is possible to use the inventory to validate the artifact generation process itself, i.e. the solution factory. Since each annotated resultant value contains its full processing route as described in the inventory, the inventory and the annotation must describe the same path. If there is a difference, there is an error in the solution factory.
Instrumented test cases are generated to provide in such a way that maximum scenario coverage is achieved. One the instrumented results for all cases match the description in the inventory, the solution factory is fully validated.
A computer program product stored on a computer readable storage medium may comprise computer code that, when run on a computer system, instructs the computer system to carry out the methods of the present invention. The computer readable storage medium is a medium for the storage of data and not for the transmission of data.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0502837.8 | Feb 2005 | GB | national |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6167564 | Fontana et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6253337 | Maloney et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6308178 | Chang et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6671724 | Pandya et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 7047518 | Little et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 20030023953 | Lucassen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030105887 | Cox et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030120502 | Robb et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030182651 | Secrist et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030182652 | Custodio | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20050114829 | Robin et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050166178 | Masticola et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216882 | Sundararajan et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2 436 763 | Feb 2005 | CA |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20060184933 A1 | Aug 2006 | US |
