Method and system for deterministic hashes to identify remote methods

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 6629154
  • Patent Number
    6,629,154
  • Date Filed
    Thursday, October 12, 2000
    24 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 30, 2003
    21 years ago
Abstract
A method and system is provided to uniquely identify a remote method to invoke on a server using a hash value computed from the method signature sent from the client to the server with the call request. When a client wishes to invoke a remote method located on a server, the client sends a hash value identifying the remote method to the server in the “remote method invocation” (RMI) call. In one implementation, this hash value is created by applying a hash function to the method string name and the parameter type list and possibly the return type. When the server receives the RMI call, the server identifies which method is being called using the received hash value. The server maintains a mapping of hash values to their associated remote methods located on the server and references the correct method using the hash value. Additionally, in one implementation, the server creates the mapping table dynamically when a remote object is created. The server identifies the methods implemented by the object and creates hash values for each method. These hash values are stored in a mapping table which is used to reference the remote methods.
Description




BACKGROUND




A. Field of the Invention




This invention relates to data processing systems, and more particularly to remote method invocations on remote servers. Even more specifically, this invention relates to a method and system for identifying remote methods on a server machine using hash values.




B. Related Art




Distributed systems typically comprise multiple machines, such as computers and related peripheral devices, connected in a network, for example, a Local Area Networks (LAN), Wide Area Network (WAN), or the Internet. Distributed systems generally require that computational entities (e.g., applications, programs, applets, etc.) running in different address spaces, potentially on different machines, be able to communicate.




For a basic communication mechanism, distributed object oriented systems utilize a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) mechanism referred to as Remote Method Invocation (RMI). RMI facilitates application-level communication between “objects” residing in different address spaces. In object oriented systems, a “class” provides a template for the creation of “objects” (which represent items or instances manipulated by the system) having characteristics of that class. The term template denotes that the objects (i.e., data items) in each class, share certain characteristics or attributes determined by the class such as its methods. Objects are typically created dynamically during system operation. Methods associated with a class are generally invoked (i.e., caused to operate) on the objects of the same class. RMI is the action of invoking a method of a remote object. In response to the invocation of a method of a remote object using RMI, a lower level communications process causes the invoked method to be executed on the remote object.




The Java™ runtime system, which is designed to implement applications written in the Java™ object oriented programming language, supports a specific Java™ RMI Application Program Interface (API). This API is explained in, for example, a document entitled “Remote Method Invocation Specification,” Sun Microsystems, Inc. (1997), which is available via universal resource locator(URL)http://www javasoft.com/products/jdk/1.1/docs/guide/rmi/spec/rmiTOC.doc.html, and is incorporated herein by reference. The Java™ language is described in many texts, including one that is entitled “The Java Language Specification” by James Gosling, Bill Joy, and Guy Steele, Addison-Wesley, 1996. Java and all Java-based trademarks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other countries.




Java RMI assumes a homogeneous environment of the specialized Java runtime system, and therefore Java RMI takes advantage of a specialized object model for the Java language whenever possible. In the Java™ distributed object model, a remote object is one that has methods that can be invoked from another runtime system, potentially on a different machine. An object of this type is described by one or more remote interfaces code written in the Java language that specify the methods of the remote object.




The Java runtime system keeps track of all remote objects referenced by computational entities executing through a local virtual machine (VM). The Java™ VM (JVM) is an abstract computing machine of the runtime system that receives instructions from programs in the form of bytecodes and that interprets these bytecodes by dynamically converting them into a form for execution, such as object code, and executing them. The JVM is described in detail in a text entitled “The Java Virtual Machine Specification”, by Tim Lindholm and Frank Yellin, Addison Wesley, 1996.




In Java RMI, a client, while processing a program, can remotely initiate processing by a server computer of methods in connection with certain “parameter” information provided by the client. After the server has processed the procedure, it will provide results of its processing to the client, which the client may thereafter use in its processing operations. Typically in such RMI calls, the client will make use of a local “stub” which, when called, transfers the request to the server which implements the particular method, obtains the results and provides them back to the client.




Conventionally, when a client calls a method on a remote object containing a list of methods, the method is identified by a string name or a sequence number identifying the selected method. However, identifying a method by its string name can create false identification of a remote method because the remote object may have more than one -method with the same string name. Such methods are said to be “overloaded.” Although methods may have the same string name, overloaded methods with duplicate same string names typically take different parameter types. For instance, suppose a remote object, using the Java programming language, has the following two methods:




















public interface Directory {













PhoneNumber lookupPhone(String name);







PhoneNumber lookupPhone(Person person)













}















If a client seeks to invoke one of these two methods, the string name “lookupPhone” alone does not enable the remote object to determine the correct method to be invoked because more than one method with that name exist.




Another conventional approach for identifying a remote method is to put the methods in alphabetical order and number them. Suppose a remote object implements the following two methods:




















public interface Directory {













PhoneNumber lookupPhone(String name);







void storePhone(String name, PhoneNumber phone);













}















The numbering of the methods may be represented as follows:




1. lookupPhone




2. storePhone




When a client wants to invoke a method, it simply sends the number corresponding to the method in the method invocation instruction. If, however, new methods are added to the remote object such that it appears as follows:




















public interface Directory {













PhoneNumber lookupPhone(String name);







void storePhone(String name, PhoneNumber phone);







Address lookupAddress(String name);







void storeAddress(String name, Address addr);













}















the new numbering of the methods would be:




1. lookupAddress




2. lookupPhone




3. storeAddress




4. storePhone




Hence, the numbers corresponding to each method have changed. Thus, existing clients that continue to use old stubs using the old numbering would invoke the wrong methods.




Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a system that uniquely identifies the methods of remote objects for RMI.




SUMMARY




The present invention satisfies this and other desires by providing a method and system for identifying the methods of remote objects using hash values.




A method in a data processing system for invoking a remote methods comprises the steps of providing a hash value uniquely identifying a remote method, sending the hash value in response to an instruction to invoke the remote method, and invoking the remote method based on the hash value. The method further includes the step of locating the remote method in a mapping table using the hash value.




Apparatus and systems are also provided for carrying out methods consistent with the present invention.




The advantages accruing to the present invention are numerous. For example, methods and systems consistent with the present invention identify unique remote methods for invocation, thus avoiding false identification of incorrect remote methods. Furthermore, this identification can be performed even if two or more methods have the same string name, or the methods use a changing numbering system.




Although a long string such as the method name combined with a parameter type list could be used to more precisely identify a remote method, such an identifier would be cumbersome. The use of hash values further creates greater efficiency by eliminating the need for long strings to more precisely identify remote methods. Additionally, it allows the server to perform more efficiently because the server can more efficiently manipulate and compute the integer numbers than the strings.




It is therefore, desirable to provide a method and apparatus to uniquely identify remote methods using hash values.











BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS




The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate an embodiment of the invention and, together with the description, serve to explain the advantages and principles of the invention. In the drawings,





FIG. 1

illustrates a network in which systems consistent with the present invention may be implemented;





FIG. 2

is block diagram of the system architecture for a computer system with which the present invention may be implemented;





FIG. 3

is a block diagram illustrating an RMI call using a hash value between a client computer and a server computer consistent with the present invention;





FIG. 4

is a block diagram of a hash value mapping table consistent with the present invention;





FIG. 5

is a flowchart illustrating the steps used to identify a unique remote method consistent with the present invention; and





FIG. 6

is a flowchart illustrating the steps used by a server machine to create a hash value mapping table consistent with the present invention.











DETAILED DESCRIPTION




Overview




Methods and systems consistent with the present invention identify a method of a remote object using a hash value. When a client wishes to invoke a method of a remote object located on a server, the client sends the hash value identifying the particular remote method to the server over the RMI connection. In one implementation, this hash value is created by applying a hash function to the method string name and the parameter type list. Known hash functions with low collision rates can be used for this purpose.




When the server receives the method invocation, the server identifies the called method using the received hash value. The server maintains a mapping of hash values to their associated remote methods located on the server and references the correct method using the hash value.




The server creates the mapping table dynamically when a remote object is created. Upon the creation of a remote object, hash values are determined for each method implemented by the remote object. The server then adds these hash values and pointers to their corresponding methods to the mapping table. When adding the hash value and method pointer, the server checks the mapping table to verify that the pairing is unique, i.e., the server checks for a hash value collision. This process allows remote methods to be identified uniquely and allows the server to continually add methods over time, as the remote class evolves, without notifying all clients with old stubs of the new methods. Additionally, it allows clients using old stubs to correctly identify remote methods on the server. Even further, the use of hashes avoids the need for long strings to identify remote methods.




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 oh 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.





FIG. 1

depicts the exemplary distributed system


100


containing a computer


102


, a computer


104


, and a device


106


interconnected by a network


108


. The device


106


may be any of a number of devices, such as a printer, fax machine, storage device, computer, or other devices. The network


108


may be a local area network, wide area network, or the Internet. Although only two computers and one device are depicted as comprising the exemplary distributed system


100


, one skilled in the art will appreciate that the exemplary distributed system


100


may include additional computers or





FIG. 2

depicts the computer


102


in greater detail to show a number of the software components of the exemplary distributed system


100


. One skilled in the art will appreciate that computer


104


or device


106


may be similarly configured. Computer


102


includes a memory


202


, a secondary storage device


204


, a central processing unit (CPU)


206


, an input device


208


, and a video display


210


. The memory


202


includes a lookup service


212


, a discovery server


214


, and a Java™ runtime system


216


. The Java runtime system


216


includes the Java™ remote method invocation system (RMI)


218


and a Java™ virtual machine


220


. The secondary storage device


204


includes a Java™ space


222


.




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™ 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 byte codes and interpreting these byte codes by 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. 09/044,939, 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 registration, the new device becomes a member of the Djinn, and as a result, it may access all the services contained in the lookup service


212


. The process of boot and join is described in greater detail in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,826, 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 al 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 SunLogo, Java, and Java-based trademarks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems Inc. in the United States and other countries.




Identifying Remote Methods Using Hashes





FIG. 3

is a block diagram illustrating an RMI call using a hash value consistent with the present invention. It also shows two computers, client


302


and server


312


, which may correspond to computers


102


and


104


shown in distributed system


100


. The invocation of a method on a remote object is implemented using Java RMJ, although other RMI mechanisms may be used. When client


302


wishes to access a method implemented by a remote object


314


on a server


312


, client


302


uses a stub


304


referencing remote object


314


. Stub


304


is typically downloaded from server


312


but can also be local to the client


302


or downloaded from somewhere else in network


100


, including another server. The manner in which the client obtains a stub is described in greater detail in copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/636,706, entitled, “System and Method For Facilitating Dynamic Loading of ‘Stub’ Information to Enable a program Operating in One Address Space to Invoke Processing of a Remote Method or Procedure in Another Address Space”, herein incorporated by reference. Additionally, a “stubless” implementation may be employed in a manner consistent with U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,938, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Remote Method Invocation”, which was previously incorporated by reference.




Stub


304


, which references remote object


314


, has a local method


306


for each remote method, such as remote method


316


, implemented by remote object


314


. This local method


306


is implemented by the client to invoke the corresponding method


316


. It performs functions, such as initiating the communication link between the client and remote method


316


and sending the hash value identifying the method. It should be noted, however, that remote object


314


may have more than one method, although only one method


316


is shown in FIG.


3


. Similarly, stub


304


may have more than one local method to implement remote methods, but only one is shown in

FIG. 3

for simplicity.




In one implemention consistent with the present invention, local method


306


is created during the compiling of stub


304


, which is created by server


312


. When a user supplies a remote object


316


(in the form of Java source code) as a Java class, a Java compiler (not shown) on server


312


compiles the Java class, thus creating a binary class file. This binary class file is compiled by a stub compiler (not shown) on server to create a stub class. Clients use instances of this stub class (i.e., a stub) to invoke methods of the remote object


316


.




In this implementation, local method


306


is compiled into stub


304


during the process of compiling the stub. The stub compiler compiles hash value


308


into the local method. As a result, local method


306


has a hash value that identifies the corresponding method in the remote object referenced by the stub. For example, suppose a server has a remote method:




int insurancePremium (String state, int age)




Then the corresponding stub may have a local method implemented as follows:




















int insurancePremium (String state, int age) {













Stream out = startNewCall ( );







sendLong (out, 4056878021019060934 . . . );







sendString (out, state);







sendInt (out, age);







Stream in = finishCall (out);







String result = readString (in);







finishResults (in);







return result;













}















where the long integer of the sendLong method call is a hash value uniquely identifying a remote method.




In one implementation, hash value


308


is a hash value resulting from applying a standard hash function to the combination of the method name and parameter type list


318


of the remote method


316


, as follows:




Hash (Method Name, Parameter Type List)




This hash function returns a hash value that may be an integer. Both the method name and parameter type list are used to avoid collisions overwise caused by using only the method name alone. In a another implementation, the hash function may be applied to the method name, parameter type and return value type. In other implementations, however, the hash function may be applied to the method name alone where collisions are less likely.




In another implementation consistent with the present invention, the hash function applied to the method name and parameter type list is the hash function used by the “Secure Hash Algorithm 1” (SHA-1) secure hash standard. This standard is described in detail in the


Federal Information Processing Standard Publication


180-1“Secure Hash Standard”, and can also be found at http://csrc.nist.gov/fips on the Internet. The SHA-1 protocol is a hash function that produces a 160 bit hash value. In yet another implementation consistent with the present invention, the hash value used is only the first 64 bits of the SHA-1 hash value. In this implementation, the hash value


308


is represented by these 64 bits, a shorten version of the full SHA-1 hash value.





FIG. 3

also shows RMI call


310


, which is used when client


302


sends a message to invoke a remote method on a remote server such as server


312


. RMI call


310


further includes hash value


308


. Upon receipt of RMI call


310


, server


312


then uses the hash value


308


to reference mapping table


320


and identify a selected remote method.





FIG. 4

further depicts details of mapping table


320


on server


312


consistent with the present invention. Generally, mapping table


320


represents the mapping of hash values to individual


5


remote methods of a remote object


314


on server


312


. As such, mapping table


320


includes sets of pairings


402


of a hash value


404


and a pointer to a remote method


306


. This pointer to a method is a “handle” that identifies a method in such a way as to allow it to be programmatically invoked through the handle. For example, in the Java programming language, this would be an instance of java.lang.reflect.Method. In C++, it would be a function pointer (i.e., the actual machine address of the code). As a result, each hash value


304


references a remote method


306


.




(1) Identifying Remote Methods





FIG. 5

illustrates the steps used in a method consistent with the present invention for identifying a unique remote method on a server by using hash values. First, client


302


makes an RMI call


310


to server


312


to remotely invoke a remote method


316


on server


312


. In this RMI call


310


, client


302


sends a hash value identifying remote method


316


to be invoked (step


500


). In RMI call


310


, the client


302


may also pass any parameter arguments to be used by the remote method


316


to invoke the method.




Next, server


312


receives hash value


308


included in RMI call


310


(step


502


). Server


312


then accesses mapping table


320


for the server class of remote object


314


to identify which remote method is to be invoked (step


504


). Upon accessing mapping table


320


, server


312


uses hash value


308


sent in RMI call


310


to identify the remote method to be invoked in the mapping table.




At this point, server


312


invokes method


316


using the received parameter argument values in RMI call


310


(step


506


). Finally, server


312


returns the result of the method invocation to client


302


(step


508


).




For an example using these steps of a method consistent with the present invention, suppose a remote object implemented the following exemplary set of methods:




















public interface Directory {













PhoneNumber lookupPhone(String name);







PhoneNumber lookupPhone(Person person);







void storePhone(String name, PhoneNumber phone);







void storePhone(Person person, PhoneNumber phone);







Address lookupAddress(String name);







Address lookupAddress(Person person);







void storeAddress(String name, Address addr);







void storeAddress(Person person, Address addr);













}















Because this list of remote methods includes methods with duplicate string names, accessing the list by method name may result in invocation of the wrong method. If, for instance, a client wished to invoke the first lookupPhone method listed in the example, the client would send an RMI call including the hash of the method name and parameter type list:




Hash (lookupPhone, String)




This process ensures that the second method, lookupPhone with the parameter Person, would not be invoked. In addition to this hash, the client also sends the argument for the parameter String (i.e., “John” to lookup the phone number for a person with the string name John.)




(2) Building the Mapping Table





FIG. 6

depicts the steps used in methods consistent with the present invention by server


312


for dynamically building the mapping table


320


at run time. Generally, when a remote object is created, the Java runtime system on server


312


adds the hash values for each method of the remote object to the mapping table


320


. As a result, server


312


has a mapping table for each remote class, since typically all remote objects of the same class have the same remote methods.




First, in methods consistent with the present invention, an object on server


312


is created as remote object, such as object


314


(step


600


). Upon this creation, the Java runtime system on server


312


locates all remote methods


316


supported by object


314


(step.


602


). The Java runtime system calculates the hash value for each remote method


316


of the remote object


314


. In one implementation, it obtains the method name and parameter type list


318


(step


604


) and computes the hash of the method name and parameter type list (step


606


). The Java runtime system on server


312


adds the resulting hash value


404


and a pointer to the method


406


to mapping table


320


(step


608


). When adding the hash value, the Java runtime system checks the mapping table to ensure that the hash value does not already exist in the mapping table, i.e., no collisions have occurred with respect to the hash values. Although hash functions virtually guarantee that a hash value will uniquely identify a remote method, checking the table verifies that there are no collisions of hash values.




To illustrate an example of the steps used in

FIG. 6

, suppose a remote object is created containing the following methods:




















public interface Directory {













Address lookupAddress(String name);







Address lookupAddress(Person person)













}















The Java runtime system on server


312


creates a hash for each remote method. In this example, it creates two hashes:




Hash (lookupaddress, String), and




Hash (lookupAddress, Person).




Each hash value is unique and will be used to uniquely identify the remote method. Each hash value is added with a pointer to its corresponding method to mapping table


320


, thus creating a method and hash value pairing


402


in mapping table


320


. Server


312


can later access mapping table


320


using hash value


308


from client


302


to identify remote method


316


to be invoked.




The process of using hashes to identify remote methods on a remote server advantageously enables a client to uniquely identify the remote method without identifying an incorrect method Additionally, the use of hashes avoids the need for long strings to identify remote methods, thereby allowing more efficient processing. The false identification of remote methods on servers commonly results from remote methods having string names common to more than one method, or the changing of numbering of methods without notifying clients using an old stub of the number changes. Methods and systems consistent with the present invention using hashes to identify remote methods on a remote server avoid these and related problems.




It will be appreciated by those skilled in this art that various modifications and variations can be made to the remote method identification strategy consistent with the present invention described herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Other embodiments of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in this art from consideration of the specification and practice of the invention disclosed herein. It is intended that the specification and examples be considered exemplary only, with a true scope and spirit of the invention being indicated by the following claims.



Claims
  • 1. A method for identifying an executable method, comprising the steps, performed by a processor, of:creating a method identifier for the executable method as a function of a name associated with the executable method and a parameter for use in connection with the execution of the executable method; sending the method identifier for the executable method to a device to invoke the executable method; and receiving a result indicating at least an attempt to initiate a process to invoke the executable method.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the creating step includes the step of:applying a hash function to the name associated with the executable method and the parameter of the local method.
  • 3. A system for identifying an executable method, the system comprising: a processor for:creating a method identifier for the executable method as a function of a name associated with the executable method and a parameter for use in connection with the execution of the executable method; sending the method identifier for the executable method to a device to invoke the executable method; and receiving a result indicating at least an attempt to initiate a process to invoke the executable method.
  • 4. A method in a data processing system for identifying a remote method on a server by a client, comprising the steps of:generating an identifier based on a name of the remote method and a parameter of the remote method, the identifier uniquely identifying the remote method to be invoked by the client; calling the server to remotely invoke the remote method on the server; sending the generated identifier identifying the remote method to be invoked; passing parameter argument values to be used in invoking the remote method; receiving the call and the identifier by the server; accessing a mapping table associated with a remote object associated with the remote method; using the identifier sent with the call to identify the remote method to be invoked in the mapping table; invoking the identified remote method using the passed parameter argument values; and returning a result of the invocation of the remote method to the client.
  • 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the generating step further includes the step of:applying a hash function to the name of the remote method and the parameter of the remote method to create the identifier.
  • 6. A computer readable medium containing instructions to perform a method for invoking a remote method on a server, the method comprising the steps of:generating an identifier based on a name of the remote method and a parameter of the remote method, the identifier uniquely identifying the remote method to be invoked by the client; calling the server to remotely invoke the remote method on the server; sending the generated identifier identifying the remote method to be invoked; passing parameter argument values to be used in invoking the remote method; receiving the call and the identifier; accessing a mapping table associated with a remote object associated with the remote method; using the identifier sent with the call to identify the remote method to be invoked in the mapping table; invoking the identified remote method using the passed parameter argument values; and returning the result of the invocation of the remote method to the client.
  • 7. The computer readable medium of claim 6, wherein the generating step further includes the step of:applying a hash function to the name of the remote method and the parameter of the remote method to create the identifier.
  • 8. A method for identifying a remote method on a server, the method comprising:generating, at a client, an identifier as a function of a name of a local method and a parameter of the local method; transmitting a call from the client to the server to invoke the local method, wherein the call comprises the generated identifier and parameter argument values for the local method; receiving the call at the server; accessing, at the server, a mapping table to identify, as a function of the received identifier, a remote method, corresponding to the local method, to be invoked; invoking, at the server, the identified remote method based on the received parameter argument values; and returning a result of the invocation of the remote method from the server to the client.
  • 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the generating step further includes the step of:applying a hash function to the name of the local method and the parameter of the local method to create the identifier.
  • 10. A computer readable medium containing instructions to perform a method for identifying a remote method on a server, the method comprising the steps of:generating, at a client, an identifier as a function of a name of a local method and a parameter of the local method; transmitting a call from the client to the server to invoke the local method, wherein the call comprises the generated identifier and parameter argument values for the local method; receiving the call at the server; accessing, at the server, a mapping table to identify, as a function of the received identifier, a remote method, corresponding to the local method, to be invoked; invoking, at the server, the identified remote method based on the received parameter argument values; and returning a result of the invocation of the remote method from the server to the client.
  • 11. The computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein the generating step further includes the step of:applying a hash function to the name of the local method and the parameter of the local method to create the identifier.
  • 12. A method for identifying executable methods in a distributed system comprised of a plurality of devices, the method comprising steps, performed by one of the devices, of:receiving a method identifier for an executable method to be invoked, the method identifier having been derived from a function based on a name associated with the executable method and a parameter for use in connection with the execution of the executable method; identifying the method to be invoked by using the method identifier; initiating a process to invoke the identified method; and returning a result indicating at least an attempt to initiate a process to invoke the identified method.
  • 13. A system for identifying a remote method, and in response, invoking the method, the system comprising:a memory including: a mapping table for mapping identifiers to methods, each method having a parameter, and each identifier being based on a name of one of the methods and a parameter associated with the method; and a processor for: receiving a request to invoke a selected one of the methods, the request including an identifier; accessing the mapping table to identify the selected method based on the included identifier; invoking the identified method using passed parameter argument values; and returning a result of the invocation of the identified method.
  • 14. A system for identifying executable methods in a distributed system comprised of a plurality of devices, the system comprising:a processor for: receiving a method identifier for an executable method to be invoked, the method identifier having been derived from a function based on a name associated with the executable method and a parameter for use in connection with the execution of the executable method; identifying the method to be invoked by using the method identifier; initiating a process to invoke the identified method; and returning a result indicating at least an attempt to initiate a process to invoke the identified method.
RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/045,652, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,134,603, filed Mar. 20, 1998, which is incorporated herein by reference. The following identified U.S. patent applications are relied upon and are incorporated by reference in this application. Provisional U.S. patent application Ser. No. 60/076,048, entitled “Distributed Computing System,” filed on Feb. 26, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044/923, entitled “Method and System for Leasing Storage,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,838, entitled “Method, Apparatus, and Product for Leasing of Delegation Certificates in a Distributed System,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,834, entitled “Method, Apparatus and Product for Leasing of Group Membership in a Distributed System,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,916, entitled “Leasing for Failure Detection,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,933, entitled “Method for Transporting Behavior in Event Based System,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,919, entitled “Deferred Reconstruction of Objects and Remote Loading for Event Notification in a Distributed System,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,938, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Remote Method Invocation,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,790, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Determining Status of Remote Objects in a Distributed System,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,930, entitled “Downloadable Smart Proxies for Perforning Processing Associated with a Remote Procedure Call in a Distributed System,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,917, entitled “Suspension and Continuation of Remote Methods,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,835, entitled “Method and System for Multi-Entry and Multi-Template Matching in a Database,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,839, entitled “Method and System for In-Place Modifications in a Database,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,945, entitled “Method and System for Typesafe Attribute Matching in a Database,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,931, entitled “Dynamic Lookup Service in a Distributed System,” and filed on the same date herewith. 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,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,826, entitled “Method and System for Facilitating Access to a Lookup Service,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,932, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Dynamically Verifying Information in a Distributed System,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,840, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Dynamic Distributed Computing Over a Network,” and filed on Feb. 26, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,938, entitled “An Interactive Design Tool for Persistent Shared Memory Spaces,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,934, entitled “Polymorphic Token-Based Control,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,915, entitled “Stack-Based Access Control,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,944, entitled “Stack-Based Security Requirements,” and filed on the same date herewith. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,837, entitled “Per-Method Designation of Security Requirements,” and filed on the same date herewith.

US Referenced Citations (187)
Number Name Date Kind
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
4809160 Mahon et al. Feb 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
5109486 Seymour Apr 1992 A
5218699 Brandle et al. Jun 1993 A
5253165 Leiseca et al. Oct 1993 A
5297283 Kelly et al. Mar 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
5339435 Lubkin 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
5448740 Kiri et al. Sep 1995 A
5452459 Drury et al. Sep 1995 A
5455952 Gjovaag 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
5504921 Dev et al. 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
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
5577231 Scalzi et al. Nov 1996 A
5592375 Salmon et al. Jan 1997 A
5594921 Pettus Jan 1997 A
5617537 Yamada et al. Apr 1997 A
5628005 Hurvig May 1997 A
5644768 Periwal et al. Jul 1997 A
5652888 Burgess Jul 1997 A
5664110 Green et al. Sep 1997 A
5664111 Nahan et al. Sep 1997 A
5666493 Wojcik et al. Sep 1997 A
5671225 Hooper et al. Sep 1997 A
5671279 Elgamal Sep 1997 A
5675796 Hodges et al. Oct 1997 A
5675797 Chung et al. Oct 1997 A
5680573 Rubin et al. Oct 1997 A
5680617 Gough 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
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
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
5757925 Faybishenko May 1998 A
5758328 Giovannoli May 1998 A
5758344 Prasad et al. May 1998 A
5761656 Ben-Shachar Jun 1998 A
5764897 Khalidi 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
5802367 Held et al. Sep 1998 A
5805805 Civanlar 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
5815711 Sakamoto et al. Sep 1998 A
5818448 Katiyar 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
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
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
5889951 Lombardi Mar 1999 A
5890158 House et al. Mar 1999 A
5892904 Atkinson et al. Apr 1999 A
5913029 Shostak Jun 1999 A
5933497 Beetcher et al. Aug 1999 A
5933647 Aronberg et al. Aug 1999 A
5935249 Stern et al. 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
5961582 Gaines Oct 1999 A
5963924 Williams et al. Oct 1999 A
5963947 Ford et al. 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
5982773 Nishimura et al. Nov 1999 A
5987506 Carter et al. 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
6003763 Gallagher et al. Dec 1999 A
6009103 Woundy Dec 1999 A
6009413 Webber et al. Dec 1999 A
6016496 Roberson Jan 2000 A
6016516 Horikiri 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
6044381 Boothby et al. Mar 2000 A
6052761 Hornung et al. Apr 2000 A
6058383 Narasimhalu et al. May 2000 A
6061699 DiCecco et al. May 2000 A
6061713 Bharadhwaj May 2000 A
6067575 McManis et al. May 2000 A
6085255 Vincent et al. Jul 2000 A
6093216 Adl-Tabatabai et al. Jul 2000 A
6108346 Doucette et al. Aug 2000 A
6134603 Jones et al. Oct 2000 A
6182083 Scheifler et al. Jan 2001 B1
6185602 Bayrakeri Feb 2001 B1
6185611 Waldo et al. Feb 2001 B1
6199116 May et al. Mar 2001 B1
6216138 Wells et al. Apr 2001 B1
6216158 Luo et al. Apr 2001 B1
6226746 Scheifler May 2001 B1
6243716 Waldo et al. 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
6272559 Jones et al. Aug 2001 B1
6282295 Young et al. Aug 2001 B1
6282568 Sondur et al. Aug 2001 B1
6339783 Horikiri Jan 2002 B1
6343308 Marchesseault Jan 2002 B1
6385643 Jacobs et al. May 2002 B1
Foreign Referenced Citations (37)
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
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
0 803 811 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
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
Non-Patent Literature Citations (140)
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, Sep. 1989, pp. 310-317.
Kolodner et al., “Atomic Garbage Collection: Managing a Stable Heap,” ACM, 1989, pp. 15-25.
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/edipaper.html, Nov. 21, 1997.
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.
Birrell et al., “Network Objects,” Operating Systems Review, 27(5), pop. 217-230, Dec. 1993.
Burns et al., “An Analytical Study of Opportunistic Lease Renewal,” Distributed Computing Systems, 21st International Conference, pp. 146-153, Apr. 2000.
Dollimore et al., “The Design of a System for Distributing Shared Objects,” The Computer Journal, No. 6, Cambridge, GB, Dec. 1991.
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.
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.
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.
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “Local Network Monitoring to Populate Access Agent Directory,” vol. 36, No. 09A, pp. 403-405, Sep. 1993.
Jones et al., “Garbage Collection: Algorithms for Automatic Dynamic Memory Management,” pp. 165-175, John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
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.
MUX-Elektronik, Java 1.1 Interactive Course, www.lls.se/˜mux/javaic.html, 1995.
Stevenson, “Token-Based Consistency of Replicated Servers,” IEEE, CH2686-4/89/0000/0179, pp. 179-183, 1989.
Venners, “Jini Technology, Out of the Box,” JAVAWORLD, ‘Online!’, pp. 1-4, Dec. 1998.
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.
Yin et al., “Using Leases to Support Server Driven Consistency in Large-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.
“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.
“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 Preswire, 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 Networks 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.
“Webwatch: MCI Announces Internet Access,”, Boardwatch Magazine, Jan. 1995.
Administrator's Guide, Netscape Enterprise Server, Version 3.0, Netscape Communications Corp., 1998.
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 83-10-02, 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.
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.
Begole et al., “Transparent Sharing of Java Applets: A Replicated Approach,” Oct. 1997, pp. 55-65.
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.
Ciancarini et al., “Coordinating Distributed Applets and Shade/Java,” Feb. 1998, pp. 130-138.
Cohen, “Electric 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.
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.
Ellsworth, “Boom Town,” Internet World, Jun. 1995, pp. 33-35.
Estrin, “Inter-Organization Networks: Implications of Access Control Requirements for Interconnection Protocols,” ACM, 1986, pp. 254-263.
Fleischer, “SkyMall's Supplier Network' Takes Flight”, 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.
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.
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.
Hsu, “Reimplementing Remote Procedure Calls,” University of Washington, Thesis, Mar. 22, 1985, pp. 1-106.
Hutchinson, “Emerald: An Object-Based Language for Distributed Programming,” a Dissertation, University of Washington, 1987, pp. 1-107.
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.
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).
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 Shock Exchange of the Computer Industry,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 1996, pp. 1-14.
Kodak Photonet FAQ, PhotoNet Online, Jun. 14, 2002, pp. 1-3.
Koshizuka et al., “Window Real-Objects: A Distributed Shared Memory for Distributed Implementation of GUI Applications,” Nov. 1993, pp. 237-247.
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.
Lampson et al., “Authentication in Distribution Systems: Theory and Practice,” ACM Transactions in 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.
Louwerse et al., “Data Protection Aspects in an Integrated Hospital Information System,” North-Holland Computers & Security 3, 1994, pp. 286-294.
McEnaney, “Point-and-Click Memory Sharing; Launches PhotoNet online digital photography and imaging services,” Photographic Trade News, Sec. Pg. 23, Jan. 1997.
Miller, “Web posting as a photo processing option,” USA Today, Section: Life, p. 17D, Dec. 13, 1996.
Morris et al., “Andrew: A Distributed Personal Computing Environment,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 29, No. 3, Mar. 1986, pp. 184-201.
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.
Petersen, “New But Not Improved,” Direct Magazine, Nov. 1995.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Odering 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 Rational Database Environment,” North-Holland Computers & Security 5, 1986, pp. 128-134.
Welz, “New Deals: A ripening Internet market, secure systems and digital currency are reshaping global commerce,” Internet World, Jun. 1995, pp. 36-41.
Wobber et al., “Authentication in the Taos Operating System” ACM, 1993, pp. 256-269.
Wyatt, “Netscape Enterprise Server,” Prima Publishing, 1996.
Alexander, et al., “Active Bridging”, Proceedings of the ACM/SIGCOMM'97 Conference, Cannes, France, 9/97.
Anonymous: “Change-Notification Service for Shared Files”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 77-82, Aug. 1993, XP002108713, New York, US.
Anonymous: “Resource Preemption for Priority Scheduling.” Nov. 1973. IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 16, No. 6, p. 1931 XP002109435 New York, US.
Beech et al., “Object Databases as Generalizations of Relational Databases,” Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 13, Nos. 1/3, pp. 221-230, (Jan. 1991) Amsterdam, NL.
Bertino et al., “Object-Oriented Database Management Systems: Concepts and Issues,” Computers, vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 33-47, (Apr. 1991), Los Alamitos, CA.
Betz, Mark; “Interoperable objects: laying the foundation for distributed object computing”; Dr. Dobb's Journal, vol. 19, No. 11, p. 18(13); (Oct. 1994).
Bevan, D.I., “An Efficient Reference Counting Solution To The Distributed Garbage Collection Problem”, Parall Computing, NL, Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam, vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 179-192, Jan. 1989.
Birrell et al., “Implementing Remote Procedure Calls”, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 2, No. 1, Feb. 1984, pp. 39-59.
Dave A et al: “Proxies, Application Interface, and Distributed Systems”, Proceedings International Workshop on Object Orientation in Operating Systems, Sep. 24, 1992, pp. 212-220.
Deux O et al: “The 02 System” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 34, No. 10, Oct. 1, 1991, pp. 34-48.
Drexler, K. Eric, et al., “Incentive Engineering for Computational Resource Management,” The Ecology of Computation, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1988, pp. 231-266.
Droms, R., “RFC 1541 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol”, http:/www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc1541.html, Oct. 1993, pp. 1-33.
Emms J: “A Definition of an Access Control Systems Language” Computer Standards and Interfaces, vol. 6, No. 4, Jan. 1, 1987, pp. 443-454.
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).
Guth, Rob: “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.
Hartman, J., Manber, U., et al., Liquid Software: A new paradigm for networked systems, Technical Report 96-11, Department of Comp. Sci., Univ. of Arizona, 6/96.
Hunt, N., “IDF: A Graphical Data Flow Programming Language for Image Processing and Computer Vision”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Los Angeles, Nov. 4-7, pp. 351-360, (1990).
IBM: “Chapter 6—Distributed SOM (DSOM)” SOMOObjects Developer Toolkit Users Guide, Version 2.1, Oct. 1994 (1994-10), pp. 6-1-6-90.
Jones, Richard, et al., “Garbage Collection: Algorithms for Automatic Dynamic Memory Management,” pp. 165-175, John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
Kay, Michael H. et al., “An Overview of the Raleigh Object-Oriented Database System”, ICL Technical Journal, vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 780-798, (Nov. 1991), Oxford, GB.
Kougiouris et al., “Support for Space Efficient Object Invocation in Spring”; (Sep. 1994).
Lindholm et al., “The Java (TM) Virtual Machine Specification”, Addison Wesley, 1996.
Mitchell et al.; “An Overview of the Spring System”; (Feb. 1994).
Orfali R. et al., “The Essential Distributed Objects Survival Guide,” Chapter 11: Corba Commercial ORBs, pp. 203-215, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., (1996).
Riggs Roger et al., “Pickling State in the Java (TM) System,” USENIX Association Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems, XP-002112719, Jun. 17-21, 1996, pp. 241-250.
Rosenberry et al., “Understanding DCE”; Chapters 1-3, 6; (1992).
Waldo J 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, Jan. 16-20, 1995, pp. 131-142.
Wilson, P.R., 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.
Wu, Xuequn, “A Type system for an Object-Oriented Database System,” Proceedings of the International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), pp. 333-338, Sep. 11-13, 1991, Tokyo, Japan.
Yemini, Y. and S. da silva, “Towards Programmable Networks”, IFIP/IEEE International Workshop on Distributed Systems: Operations and Management, L'Aquila, Italy, 10/96.
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
60/076048 Feb 1998 US
Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 09/045652 Mar 1998 US
Child 09/688029 US