This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/015,501, entitled “TRAFFIC MANAGER FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/015,502, also entitled “TRAFFIC MANAGER FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to distributed computing environments, and more particularly to communication between various programs operating in the distributed computing environments.
2. Description of the Related Art
Recently, distributed computing environments have become widespread. Accordingly, extensive efforts have been made to facilitate communication between the various computing nodes which typically operate in such environments. One such effort is the development of the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP). SOAP is a standard which can be used to facilitate communication between different computing nodes operating in different platforms (or operating systems). As such, SOAP provides a way for a computing program (program) running in one kind of operating system (e.g., Windows 2000) to communicate with another computer program which is running in another kind of operating system (e.g., Linux).
Typically SOAP uses Extensible Markup Language (XML) and a transport protocol (such as HTTP, SMTP, MQ, etc.) as the mechanisms for information exchange. SOAP specifies how to encode an XML file so that a computer program running in one computer can call a computer program in another computer. This allows the computer program running in the first computer to send information to the program running in the other computer (e.g., one program to call another program). In addition, SOAP specifies how the called program can return a response. Since HTTP and XML Web protocols are usually installed and available for use in most operating platforms, SOAP provides a readily available solution to the difficult problem of allowing computer programs running in different environments to communicate with each other.
A major design goal for SOAP is simplicity and extensibility. This means that there are several features of traditional messaging systems and distributed object systems that are not part of the core SOAP specification. Accordingly, SOAP can be used as a lightweight protocol for exchange of information in a decentralized, distributed environment. As an XML based protocol, SOAP can consist of three parts: an envelope that defines a framework for describing what is in a message and how to process it, a set of encoding rules for expressing instances of application-defined data types, and a convention for representing remote procedure calls (RPC) and responses. The SOAP envelope construct defines an overall framework for expressing what is in a message, who should deal with it, and whether it is optional or mandatory. The SOAP encoding rules define a serialization mechanism that can be used to exchange instances of application-defined data types. The SOAP RPC representation defines a convention that can be used to represent remote procedure calls and responses. SOAP does not itself define any application semantics, such as a programming model or implementation specific semantics. Instead, it defines a simple mechanism for expressing application semantics by providing a modular packaging model and encoding mechanisms for encoding data within modules. This allows SOAP to be used in a large variety of systems. Accordingly, it highly desirable to provide a communication environment which can use SOAP or similar protocols.
Unfortunately, conventional approaches fail to solve many other problems associated with communication between computer programs in distributed computing environments. One such shortcoming is that the conventional approaches fail to provide a solution which can simultaneously and efficiently bridge the many disparate characteristics which typically exist between the nodes that make up a distributed computing environment. Even in cases where a solution can be provided to account for a particular type of difference (e.g., relating to security features) between various nodes, typically a costly and/or ad hoc approach is used. To illustrate,
Accordingly, conventional approaches do not provide a comprehensive approach to bridging these differences. This means that in order to facilitate communication between the numerous nodes and programming environments that typically make up a distributed computing environment, a tremendous amount of resources have to be deployed to painstakingly implement each desirable feature between each and every program on each and every node. The inefficiencies inherent in such an approach are manifest.
In view of the foregoing, improved techniques for allowing communication in distributed computing environments are needed.
The invention pertain to techniques for representation of data representations which are associated with processing of messages (message processing representations). In accordance with one embodiment of the invention, a message server suitable for storing message processing representations is disclosed. As will be appreciated, the message server provides a flexible environment which is better suited for creation and maintenance of message processing representations. The message processing representations can, for example, be rules/policies, service request roles and service/operation definitions. In any case, the message processing representations can typically be used to perform message processing.
In addition, the message server is also capable of generating pre-computed data suitable for runtime processing of messages. As will be appreciated, the pre-computed data can be used to improve runtime processing of messages. As result, many problems associated with message processing in conventional distributed computing environments can be addressed. These problems include, for example, high hardware costs associated with adding a message server to manage web services message traffic; administration costs associated with coordinating, planning, and synchronizing updates to the multiple message servers required to handle a given volume of traffic and administration costs associated with insuring consistent policies and practices across various computing nodes.
The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a method, an apparatus, and a computer readable medium. Several embodiments of the invention are discussed below.
Other aspects and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, illustrating by way of example the principles of the invention.
The present invention will be readily understood by the following detailed description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate like structural elements, and in which:
As noted in the background, extensive efforts have been made to facilitate communication between various computing nodes which make up a distributed computing environment. Unfortunately, conventional approaches fail to solve many problems associated with communication between computer programs in distributed computing environments. One such shortcoming is that the conventional approaches fail to provide a solution which can simultaneously and efficiently bridge the many disparate characteristics which typically exist between the nodes that make up a distributed computing environment.
Accordingly, the invention pertains to techniques suitable for facilitating communication between various computer programs operating on various nodes in a distributed computing environment. In accordance with one aspect of the invention, a message server (or traffic manager) is disclosed. The message server can also be referred to as traffic manager since the message server is capable of monitoring traffic exchanged between client and server programs operating in the distributed computing environment. Moreover, the message server can be used to implement a variety of desirable features across different computing environments. These computing environments are typically separated by one or more distinguishing characteristics. As will be appreciated, the message server provides an integral and cost effective solution which can bridge these distinguishing characteristics as well as define and enforce policies across disparate applications and computing environments.
According to various embodiments, this is achieved by centralizing the generation of interfaces which allow interaction between any of the nodes in a distributed computing system. That is, instead of enabling each node to generate the necessary interfaces for communicating with each other type of node in the system, the present invention abstracts and centralizes this function so that a single node or set of nodes is responsible for affecting the communication between disparate nodes. This avoids the redundancy and inefficiency inherent in building these capabilities in each node, particularly in complex systems. Another advantage is that the present invention can provide control for enforcing Information Technology (IT) and/or business policies and procedures. This can be achieved when the interfaces are compatible or incompatible.
Embodiments of the invention are discussed below with reference to
As will be appreciated, the message 200 can be implemented using one or more physical components (physical components 1-N). Each of these physical components can, for example, be a computing node with memory and a central processing unit. In any case, the message server 200 facilitates communication between any of the computing nodes in the distributed computing environment 201. Message server 200 can publish one or more message interfaces, for example, message Interfaces 202, 203 and 204. The message Interfaces 202, 203 and 204 can respectively be used by the computing nodes A, B and C. In other words, various client programs running on different computing nodes in the computing environment 201 can use a different message interface in order to invoke services which are provided by one or more programs running on computing node D.
According to a more specific embodiment, the message server 200 operates to manage the data traffic in the computing environment 201. That is, the message server 200 monitors the data generated by the computing nodes A, B and C and determines whether the data should be transmitted to the computing node D. Moreover, the message server 200 maps a set of service requests generated by the client programs running in computing nodes A, B and C into a set of service requests which are directed to one or more server programs running in the computing node D. As such, the message server 200 may perform a mapping between two application interfaces.
As illustrated in
In response, for example, to a request received from the client program 302, the message server 300 can read a Web Services Description Language (WSDL) file 306 associated with server program 304. The WSDL 306 provides a detailed technical description specifying a SOAP interface 308. The SOAP interface 308 is the interface to the one or more services which are provided by the server program 304. As such, the WSDL provides information about interface 308 so that these services can be accessed. It should be noted that an optional Universal Description, Discovery and Integration directory (UDDI) 310 may initially be accessed in order to, among other things, get information about the WSDL file 306.
In any case, after the message server 300 reads the WSDL file 306, the message server can generate and/or publish one or more corresponding WSDL file 312 and a corresponding SOAP interface 314. In other words, the message server 300 can generate one or more SOAP interfaces (e.g., SOAP Interface 314 shown in
The SOAP Interface 314 may also provide a common interface by which client program 302 and any other program or node in the system may transparently invoke one or more services associated with the server program 304. According to specific embodiments, WSDL file 312 and SOAP interface 314 are generated at least partially based on data stored in a persistent storage medium 315. The data stored in the persistent storage medium 315 can, for example, include rules, policies, a mapping of users with organizational roles (e.g., an LDAP directory), etc. As will be appreciated, these can be used, for example, to define interfaces, approve interfaces, define policies and rules, review operational data, etc.
According to one embodiment, a person (e.g., application developer and/or business analyst, etc.) 316 may interact with the message server 300, for example, through a Graphical User Interface. Accordingly, the WSDL file 312 and SOAP Interface 314 can be generated by the message server 300 at least partly based on input provided by a person. It should also be noted that the message server 300 may optionally publish the WSDL file 312 in a UDDI 319.
As noted above, the message server 300 generates the corresponding SOAP Interface 314 for the SOAP Interface 308. Accordingly, the client program 302 can access (or invoke) the services provided by the server program 304 through the SOAP interface 314. Referring to
The message server 300 can, in turn, perform a variety of operations on the SOAP message 320. For example, the message server 300 may discard, hold, store, or forward the SOAP message 320. The message server 300 may also transform the SOAP message 320 into another SOAP message 322 which is sent to the server program 304 and/or one or more other programs (not shown) in the distributed computing environment 301.
As noted above, the SOAP message 320 can be a request for one or more services. Accordingly, the message server 300, among other things, can determine whether a request for invocation of the same and/or different services should be made from the server program 304 and/or other server programs (not shown) in the distributed computing environment 301. This determination can be made at least partially based on the data stored in the persistent storage 315. Based on this determination, the message server 300 can map a request made by the client program 302 through the SOAP Interface 314 to a request for services from the server program 304 through the SOAP Interface 308. In other words, a SOAP message 322 can be generated by the message server 300 and transmitted to the server program 304 and/or other server programs (not shown). The SOAP message 322 corresponds to the SOAP message 320 and can be a request for the same or different set of services provided by the server program 304. Accordingly, the message server 300 can monitor the data traffic between the client program 302 and server program 304 and/or other server or client programs in the distributed computing environment 301.
Moreover, the message server 300 can be used to manage the services provided by the server program 304 and/or other server programs in the distributed computing environment 301. This allows the services which are offered by the server program to be mapped to possibly a different set of services which are actually provided to the client program 302. This provides control over the access of services in a distributed computing environment and allows implementation of various policies across different computing nodes which typically possess one or more disparate characteristics.
Accordingly, at operation 358, a second WSDL file which describes the at least one generated (or published) interface is generated (or published). Finally, at operation 360, at least one UDDI entry associated with the generated (or published) WSDL file is created (or updated). The method 350 ends following operation 360.
As noted above, one aspect of the invention allows implementation of various policies across different computing nodes which typically possess one or more disparate characteristics. By way of example,
Referring to back to
Next, at operation 414, a determination is made as to whether the attempt to decrypt the SOAP message was successful. If it is determined at operation 414 that the attempt to decrypt the SOAP message was not successful, the security method 400 proceeds to operation 416 where appropriate action is taken, as defined by the decryption rule. For example, an alarm can be sent. However, operation 416 is bypassed if it is determined at operation 414 that the attempt to decrypt the SOAP message was successful.
In any case, following operation 416 or directly from operations 408, 410 or 414, the security method 400 can proceed to operation 418 where a determination is made as to whether at least one encryption rule is associated with the SOAP message. If it is determined at operation 418 that no encryption rule is associated with the SOAP message, the security method 400 proceeds to operation 420 where the SOAP message is sent to one or more server programs. The security method 400 ends following operation 420. However, if it is determined at operation 418 that at least one encryption rule is associated with the SOAP message, the security method 400 proceeds to operation 422 where the SOAP message is encrypted using one or more keys which are associated with the encryption rule before the message is sent to one or more server programs at operation 420. In any case, the security method 400 ends following operation 420.
According to a specific embodiment, the security method 500 can, for example, be used to verify signatures and/or sign messages using keys (or identifiers) which are recognized or used by the client and server programs. Initially, at operation 502, a SOAP message is received. Next, at operation 504, a message type is determined for the SOAP message. Thereafter, at operation 506, the rules associated with the message type are looked up. Accordingly, at operation 508, a determination is made as to whether at least one signature verification rule is associated with the SOAP message. If it is determined at operation 508 that a signature verification rule is associated with the SOAP message, the security method 500 proceeds to operation 510 where at least one signature associated with the SOAP message is verified according to the at least one signature verification rule. Next, at operation 512, a determination is made as to whether the signatures have successfully been verified. If it is determined at operation 512 that the one or more signatures have not been successfully verified, the security method 500 proceeds to operation 514 where appropriate action is taken as defined by the signature verification rule. For example, an alarm can be sent. Thereafter, the security method 500 proceeds to operation 516 where a determination is made as to whether there is at least one signing rule associated with the SOAP message. It should be noted that if it is determined at operation 512 that the one or more signatures have been successfully verified, the security method 500 bypasses operation 514 and proceeds directly to operation 516. It should also be noted that if it is determined at operation 508 that there are no signature verification rules associated with the SOAP message, the security method 500 also directly proceeds to the operation 516.
If it is determined at operation 516 that there are no signing rules associated with the SOAP message, the security method 500 proceeds to operation 518 where the SOAP message is processed (e.g., the SOAP message is sent to one or more servers). The method 500 ends following operation 518. However, if it is determined at operation 516 that there is at least one signing rule associated with the SOAP message, the security method 500 proceeds to operation 520 where at least one portion of the SOAP message is signed using one or more keys which are associated with the at least one signing rule. Thereafter, at operation 518 the SOAP message is processed. The method 500 ends following the operation 518.
In any case, after data has been collected, the security method 600 proceeds to operation 614 where the first rule associated with the SOAP message is tested using the collected data. Next, at operation 616, a determination is made as to whether the first rule indicates that a service attack has been made. If it is determined at operation 616 that a service attack has been made, the security method 600 proceeds to operation 618 where service is denied and remedial action is taken. The remedial action taken can, for example, include notifying an administrator, holding the SOAP message, etc. The security method 600 ends following operation 618.
On the other hand, if it is determined at operation 616 that the first rule does not indicate a service attack, the security method 600 proceeds to operation 620 where a determination is made as to whether there are more rules associated with the SOAP message. If it is determined at operation 620 that there are no additional rules associated with the SOAP message, the security method 600 proceeds to operation 624 where the SOAP message is processed (e.g., transformed and/or forwarded). The security method 600 ends following operation 624.
However, if it determined at operation 620 that there is at least one additional rule associated with the SOAP message, the security method 600 proceeds to operation 622 where the next rule associated with the SOAP message is tested using the collected data. Next, the security method 600 proceeds to operation 616 where a determination is made as to whether the rule indicates a service attack. Thereafter, the security method 600 proceeds in the same manner as discussed above. The security method 600 ends either following operation 618 where service is denied and remedial action is taken or after the operation 624 where the SOAP message is processed.
As will be appreciated, one aspect of the invention allows for the enforcement of various policies with respect to the various services provided in a distributed computing environment. In one embodiment, a message server (e.g., message server 300 of
Referring back to
Similarly, at operation 704, a WSDL file for the SOAP interface is identified. Next, at operation 706, the rules which apply to the SOAP interface are input. This operation can be performed, for example, by the programmer through a user interface associated with the SOAP message server. The SOAP message server can perform a search and output the rules which apply to the SOAP interface. Next, at operation 708, one or more additional rules for the SOAP interface and/or existing rules to be associated with the interface are specified. Again, this operation can be performed, for example, by the programmer through a user interface associated with the SOAP message server.
At operation 710, a request is queued for approval. Next, at operation 712, the approval process for the request is initiated. The approval process can, for example, be initiated by an administrator. The administrator can interact with a user interface of the SOAP message server which facilitates the approval process. At operation 714, a review is made as to whether any existing rules apply to the request (e.g., whether any rules apply to the identified SOAP interface). Again, this determination can, for example, be made by the administrator who uses an interface of the SOAP message server to initiate a search for the applicable rules.
At operation 716 a determination is made as to whether any modifications should be made to what has been requested for approval (e.g., whether modification should be made to the SOAP interface and/or one or more rules). If it is determined at operation 716 that there is a need to make modifications to what has been requested for approval, the method 700 proceeds to operation 718 where appropriate modifications to the request can be made. Next, the method 700 proceeds to operation 720 where a determination is made as to whether the request should be approved. It should be noted that if it is determined at operation 716 that there is no need to make any modifications, the method 700 bypasses operation 718 and proceeds directly to operation 720 where a determination is made as to whether the request should be approved.
In any case, if it is determined at operation 720 that the request should not be approved, the method 700 proceeds to operation 722 where appropriate action can be taken (e.g., the programmer who made the request can be notified). The method 700 ends following operation 722. However, if it is determined at operation 720 that the request should be approved, the method 700 proceeds to operation 724 where the request is approved and/or implemented (e.g., a SOAP interface is published, access to the SOAP interface is allowed, new rules or modification to rules are in effect, etc.). The method 700 ends following operation 724.
Yet another aspect of the invention provides for conditional data processing (or conditional data flow) of messages exchanged between client and server programs in a distributed computing environment. The conditional data processing (or conditional data flow) of messages is another example of the many functionalities that can be provided using the invention. Moreover, this functionality can be abstracted and centralized so as to avoid the redundancy and inefficiency inherent in building these capabilities into each node, particularly in complex systems. Another advantage is that control over enforcement of Information Technology (IT) and/or business policies and procedures can be achieved. This can be achieved when the interfaces are compatible or incompatible.
Accordingly, at operation 818, a determination is made as to whether action is required. If it is determined at operation 818 that action is required, the processing method 800 proceeds to operation 820 where appropriate action can be taken. These actions can, for example, include holding the SOAP message, archiving the SOAP message, failing SOAP message delivery, sending a notification, logging special notification, modifying the data in the message, sending side-effect SOAP messages, invoking Java methods and so on.
After appropriate action is taken, the processing method 800 proceeds to operation 822 where a determination is made as to whether there are more data review/conditional flow rules to evaluate. It should be noted that if it is determined at operation 818 that no action is required, the processing method 800 bypasses operation 820 and directly proceeds to operation 822.
If it is determined at operation 822 that there is at least one data review/conditional flow rule to evaluate, the processing method 800 proceeds to operation 814 where data is gathered from the SOAP message as specified by the data review/conditional flow rule. Thereafter, the processing method 800 proceeds in a similar manner as discussed above. On the other hand, if it is determined at operation 822 that there are no data review/conditional flow rules to evaluate, the processing method 800 proceeds to 824 where the processing of the SOAP message is completed (e.g., the SOAP message is delivered). The processing method 800 ends following operation 824.
Other aspects of the invention pertain to techniques for representation of data associated with processing of messages (message processing representations). In accordance with one embodiment of the invention, a message server suitable for storing message processing representations is disclosed. As will be appreciated, the message server provides a flexible environment which is well suited for creation and maintenance of message processing representations needed at design time (design time representations). The design time representations can, for example, be rules/policies, service request roles and service/operation definitions. In any case, the message processing representations can typically be used to perform message processing.
In addition, the message server is also capable of generating pre-computed data suitable for runtime processing of messages. These representations can be referred to as runtime representations. As will be appreciated, the pre-computed data can be used to improve runtime processing of messages. As result, many problems associated with message processing in conventional distributed computing environments can be addressed. These problems include, for example, high hardware costs associated with adding a message server to manage web services message traffic; administration costs associated with coordinating, planning, and synchronizing updates to the multiple message servers required to handle a given volume of traffic and administration costs associated with insuring consistent policies and practices across various computing nodes.
As noted above, design time representations can, for example, be rules/policies, service request roles and service/operation definitions. The design time representations can, for example, be defined based on a policy consideration associated with message processing. In any case, these representations can be defined and/or maintained in a form which is more suitable at design time (e.g., before runtime processing of the message).
The design component 902 can facilitate generation of design time representations of message processing representations which can be used to process messages. These design time representations can be stored in the database 910. The user interface 906 allows a user (e.g., system administrator, programmer developer, etc.) to conveniently access the database 910 to perform various operations related to design time representations (e.g., define, modify or retrieve a design time representation). It should be noted that the design time representations can be implemented in a way which better serves the design time requirements for representing data associated with message processing. This means that design time representations can be implemented using data structures which are better suited for creating, modifying, or retrieving data. As such, the database 910 can be utilized to meet these needs.
The application logic 908, among other things, can facilitate generation of a set of corresponding runtime representations which can, in turn, be provided to the runtime component 904 (or one or more of its subcomponents). As will be appreciated, the runtime representations can be in a form which is more suitable for processing messages at runtime (i.e., optimized for runtime performance). The runtime representations can be used by one or more subcomponents of the runtime component 904 at runtime to process messages more efficiently. As a result, the runtime performance can be improved.
Next, at operation 954, a determination is made as to whether at least one corresponding runtime representation should be generated. The runtime representation is in a form which is more suitable for runtime processing. If it is determined at operation 954 that no runtime representations should be generated, the method 950 ends. However, if it is determined at operation 954 that the at least one runtime representation should be generated, the method 950 proceeds to operation 956 where at least one runtime representation is generated. Thereafter, at operation 958, at least one runtime representation is made available to at least one runtime component for processing at runtime. The method 950 ends following operation 958.
One embodiment of the invention is an XML Web Services (XWS) Message Server. XML Web Services are related to a set of evolving standards and common practices that are used to facilitate communication between computer programs. Examples of XML Web Services standards include: Extensible Markup Language (XML); XML Schema; SOAP; Web Services Description Language (WSDL); Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL); XSL Transformations (XSLT); XPath; Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI); Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML); XML Key Management Specification (XKMS); XML Signature; XML Encryption; and Web Services Security (WS-Security).
XML Web Services message traffic can, for example, include messages primarily formatted in Extensible Markup Language (XML) that travel from computer program to computer program in order to exchange information. As such, these messages can request one or more services or respond to requests for services, as will as initiating a procedure or providing the result of a procedure. An XML Web Services (XWS) Message Server can be implemented as a system of one or more software and/or hardware components that manage, secure, or coordinate XML Web Services message traffic.
The design time representations can include, for example, rules, definitions, policies and other considerations useful in processing an XML message (e.g., role definitions, service requestor access control definitions, service and operation definitions/metadata that are used to processes a message, etc.). The design time representations are typically created before an XML message is processed. As such, the design representations can be stored in a database 1006 that provides structured persistent storage of data and flexible access to add, remove, modify, search and query the data. This allows the design time representations to be stored in a manner which best serves the need for frequent updating and retrieving data prior to processing the message at runtime.
On the other hand, the runtime representations can be created and stored in a form which is structured to improve message processing performance. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, several techniques can be used to improve message processing performance. These techniques, for example, include formatting to reduce the time required to create, load, reload, and/or transfer the data, aggregation of separate data, separation of aggregate data, pre-computation of higher-level data from more basic forms, pre-computation of which message transformation technique will perform optimally given the range of transformations that may be required at runtime, pre-computation of which data items from within the XML message may be required to process that message at runtime, normalization of data, and de-normalization of data. In any case, the runtime representations can, for example, be stored in storage device 1008.
As will be appreciated, the XWS Message Server of
Accordingly, the XWS Message Server 1000 and 1050 respectively shown in
As will be appreciated, a design time and/or runtime component can recognize which classes of transformations can be performed using stream-oriented message handling techniques without the need to create a non-stream-oriented data structure. This information can be included in pre-computed data (e.g., data structures) used by the runtime component(s). Accordingly, the runtime component can use this information to minimize generation and use of non-stream-oriented data structures. By way of example, for message transformations that operate on individual message elements, filters can be implemented. Transformation can be done when a filter is triggered by the appearance of specified elements or patterns in the stream-oriented data structures. For example, XPATH can be used as a technique to specify the relevant message element or patterns of information relationships.
As noted above, pre-computed datasets can be generated in accordance with one aspect of the invention.
In any case, the method 1200 proceeds from operation 1206 to operation 1208 where a determination is made as to whether an XML message has been received. The determination made at operation 1208 can be performed at runtime. If it is determined at operation 1208 that an XML message has been received, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1210 where it is determined if a streaming parsing technique should be used in order to parse the XML message sequentially as a stream. If it is determined at operation 1210 that a streaming parsing technique should not be used, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1212 where a non-streaming parsing technique is used. As will be known to those skilled in the art, the non-streaming process can, for example, build a representation of the data (e.g., a DOM applying XSLT transformations). The method 1200 ends following operation 1212.
However, if it is determined at operation 1210 that a streaming parsing technique should be used, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1214 where parsing of the XML message is initiated. This determination, for example, can be made based on the type of the XML message. Next, at operation 1216, it is determined whether a transformation filter is triggered. As will be appreciated, a pattern matching technique (e.g., XPATH) can be used to define filters.
If it is determined at operation 1216 that a transformation filter has not been triggered, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1218 where it is determined whether parsing of the message has been completed. If it is determined at operation 1218 that the parsing of the message has been completed, the method 1200 ends. However, if it is determined at operation 1218 that the method 1200 should not end, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1220 where parsing of the XML message is continued.
Thereafter, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1216 where a determination is made as to whether a transformation filter has been triggered. If it is determined at operation 1216 that a transformation filter has been triggered, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1224 where the transformation for the filter is performed. Next, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1218 where it is determined if the method 1200 should end. Thereafter, the method 1200 proceeds in the same manner as described above. The method 1200 ends when it is determined at operation 1218 that the method 1200 should end or after completion of operation 1212.
As noted above, the XWS Message Server of
Pre-computed data can be generated in advance to indicate which data items may be needed to process the message at runtime. This can minimize the number of times a message is scanned to retrieve data needed for processing.
In any case, if it is determined at operation 1306 that an XML message is received, the method 1300 proceeds to operation 1308 where a single pass through the XML message is initiated using a streaming parsing technique. Next, at operation 1310, all data elements which may be needed to process the XML message are gathered using the pre-computed data. Finally, at operation 1312, one or more operations are performed to process the message. The method 1300 ends following operation 1312.
As will be appreciated, message processing representations can be represented as a sequence of instructions in accordance with one embodiment of the invention. As such, within a runtime component, message processing rules and policies are represented as a sequence of instructions. The instructions can be used, for example, to authenticate/authorize a sender, encrypt/decrypt a message, digitally sign a message or verify a digital signature. The instructions can be optimized using one or more techniques. These techniques include, for example, eliminating unnecessary or redundant instructions, delaying the execution of an instruction until its result is actually needed, reusing the results of expensive instructions or identify instructions that can be performed in parallel. Furthermore, execution of the instructions can be optimized using one or more techniques. These techniques include, for example, executing the instructions in a virtual machine implemented in hardware or software, caching instructions corresponding to frequently used messages, executing instructions in parallel, and making use of special-purpose hardware for cryptographic functions.
The many features and advantages of the present invention are apparent from the written description. Further, since numerous modifications and changes will readily occur to those skilled in the art, it is not desired to limit the invention to the exact construction and operation as illustrated and described. For example, several embodiments of the invention are described with reference to SOAP and XML interfaces. It will be understood, however, that the present invention includes other protocols and mechanisms by which the interaction of disparate nodes in a distributed computing environment may be facilitated.
This application claims the benefit of priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/394,109, filed on Jul. 2, 2002 and entitled “MESSAGE PROCESSING FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5245616 | Olson | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5392398 | Meyer | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5596720 | Hamada et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5758354 | Huang et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5765033 | Miloslavsky | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5805825 | Danneels et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5822526 | Waskiewicz | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5850525 | Kalkunte et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5857201 | Wright, Jr. et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5870605 | Bracho et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5878056 | Black et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5951648 | Kailash | Sep 1999 | A |
| 6016515 | Shaw et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6061559 | Eriksson et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6112323 | Meizlik et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6128646 | Miloslavsky | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6145781 | Kawabe et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6167445 | Gai et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6289212 | Stein et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6298455 | Knapman et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6336119 | Banavar et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6397352 | Chandrasekaran et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6452934 | Nakata | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6453346 | Garg et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6484198 | Milovanovic et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6513154 | Porterfield | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6643682 | Todd et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6647544 | Ryman et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6728715 | Astley et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6732175 | Abjanic | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6782386 | Gebauer | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6792460 | Oulu et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| 6801604 | Maes et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
| 6807636 | Hartman et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
| 6816898 | Scarpelli et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6898556 | Smocha et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6901447 | Koo et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6944662 | Devine et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 6965939 | Cuomo et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6983479 | Salas et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 7007278 | Gungabeesoon | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7028089 | Agarwalla et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7039701 | Wesley | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7096263 | Leighton et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7103054 | Novaes | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7136913 | Linderman | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7177929 | Burbeck et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7251689 | Wesley | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7287097 | Friend et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
| 7302492 | Day | Nov 2007 | B1 |
| 7302634 | Lucovsky et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7334022 | Nishimura et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7359919 | Cohen et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7379971 | Miller et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7386630 | Liong et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
| 7395349 | Szabo et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
| 7406440 | Napier et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7406537 | Cullen | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7418501 | Davis et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7433835 | Frederick et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7464154 | Dick et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7467196 | Di Luoffo et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7487510 | Carr | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7496637 | Han et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7512957 | Cohen et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7516191 | Brouk et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7533172 | Traversat et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7539656 | Fratkina et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7543280 | Rosenthal et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7603358 | Anderson et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
| 7702636 | Sholtis et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
| 7752604 | Genkin et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7801946 | Bearman | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7801976 | Hodges et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7881992 | Seaman et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
| 7887511 | Mernoe et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7895262 | Nielsen et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7941542 | Broda et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 8001232 | Saulpaugh et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 8060553 | Mamou et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 20010007993 | Wu | Jul 2001 | A1 |
| 20020010781 | Tuatini | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020026473 | Gourraud | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091757 | Cuomo et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107992 | Osbourne et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020161826 | Arteaga et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20030005174 | Coffman et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030014733 | Ringseth et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030041178 | Brouk et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030055920 | Kakadia et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030061404 | Atwal et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030074579 | Della-Libera et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030093500 | Khodabakchian et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030101210 | Goodman et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030120665 | Fox et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030145281 | Thames et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030204644 | Vincent | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040030947 | Aghili et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040088140 | O'Konski et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133633 | Fearnley et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040186817 | Thames et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193703 | Loewy et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040216127 | Datta et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040225724 | Pavlik et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20050027853 | Martin et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050038708 | Wu | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20060031481 | Patrick et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060173985 | Moore | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060195819 | Chory et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060206440 | Anderson et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224702 | Schmidt et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224750 | Davies et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060230432 | Lee et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20070174393 | Bosschaert et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20080059220 | Roth et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080148346 | Gill et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172270 | Eckenroth | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20090319832 | Zhang et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090326997 | Becker et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100017853 | Readshaw | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100030718 | Anderson et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100304992 | An et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60394109 | Jul 2002 | US |