The present patent application claims the priority benefit of the filing date of European Application (EPO) No. 04 025 505.1 filed Oct. 27, 2004, which is incorporated herein by reference.
This application relates generally to servicing of a software system landscape by means of transport requests, and more particularly to a method for generating a transport track through a software system landscape and to a computer system with software system landscape and a transport track.
Complex software like applicant's SAP R/3 Release 4.5 (SAP) requires customization, e.g. selection of predefined functionality, and adaptation, e.g. addition of or amendment to functionality, as well as other servicing like program and data updates, cf. “SAP System Landscape Optimization” by A. Schneider-Neureither (Ed.), SAP Press, 2004, ISBN 1-59229-026-4, and “SAP R/3 Änderungs-und Transportmanagement” by Metzger and Rohrs, Galileo Press GmbH, Bonn, Germany, 4th reprint 2004, ISBN 3-934358-42-X.
Before such servicing may be performed, however, it has to be assured that the customizations, adaptations, program and data updates etc. are free of errors and integrate flawlessly into the software and data environment. In a factory for instance servicing errors are bound to result in costly workflow disruptions due to software malfunction or data corruption. Apart from the servicing side, other use of the software like training of new or inexperienced users may also result in a disruption of the productive system.
Such complex software may therefore be implemented in form of separate logical systems that together form a system landscape. A typical implementation of the aforementioned SAP software for instance may, cf.
The logical systems are identical in large parts, function autonomously and may be run on a single computer. The quality assurance system 102 for example resembles the productive system 104 in that it provides all the functionality, its present data and additionally special test data. New customization settings or adaptations may thus be thoroughly tested in the quality assurance system 102 without jeopardizing the productive system 104. Likewise, the training system 103 resembles the productive system 104 in that it provides some of the functionality and special test data. A new user using the training system 103 may thus become accustomed to the functionality and observe the effect of his actions, albeit without disturbing the productive system 104.
Software services that have been tested and approved in one system may be forwarded to subsequent systems via logical directional transport paths 105. For instance, a service approved in development system 101 is forwarded to the quality assurance system 102, and upon approval in the quality assurance system 102 further forwarded simultaneously to the training system 103 and both productive systems 104.
Servicing is often performed on a software service project basis. A software service project like adaptation of the software to new legislation may require servicing of a selection of systems of the system landscape only, e.g. the systems in one country only. As all systems simply forward the imported services to all other systems connected thereto, the operators of the systems that do not require servicing have to manually reject each and every service that is not intended for their system. This is time consuming and bears the risk of errors, in particular given the considerable number of services that are typically required during the lifetime of a project. An automated way presently is to change system changeability parameters of each system on a project basis, e.g. to specify in each system whether it accepts services corresponding to a particular project. This, too, is time consuming and bears the risk of errors as it requires authorized access to and configuration of each system.
The operator also has to assure that the services are imported in the correct order. The importance of the correct order is illustrated in
In view of the fact that an SAP R/3 implementation may comprise dozens of systems and require thousands of services per month during project development and implementation, the operator time required becomes considerable as does the risk for errors to occur.
In one aspect of the invention, a method is provided for generating a transport track for routing transport requests through a software system landscape comprising a central control system and a plurality of logical systems interconnected by logical transport paths, a transport request defining a software service to at least one of the code and the data of a system in the landscape, the method comprising the steps of: selecting a group of systems for a software service project according to a project definition; analyzing in the central system the transport paths between the systems of the group for finding a suitable route through all systems of the group; and generating in the central system a transport track according to the analysis, the transport track defining a route for transport requests through all systems of the group in a particular order, the transport track specifying one source system in which software services are permitted, pairs of adjacent interconnected systems, and at least one target system.
In a further aspect of the invention, a computer system is provided comprising: a central control system; a plurality of logical systems; logical transport paths that interconnect the logical systems to form a software system landscape, the logical transport paths allowing a transport request to be transported from one system into another system, a transport request defining a software service to at least one of the code and the data of a system in the landscape; means for selecting a group of systems for a software service project according to a project definition; means for analyzing in the central system the transport paths between the systems of the group for finding a suitable route through all systems of the group; and means for generating in the central system a transport track according to the analysis, the transport track defining a route for transport requests through all systems of the group in a particular order, the transport track specifying one source system in which software services are permitted, pairs of adjacent interconnected systems, and at least one target system.
In a still further aspect of the invention, a computer program product is provided, the computer program product comprising on a storage medium a computer code that upon execution on a computer system performs the method according to the invention.
Further embodiments of the invention are inferable from the following description and the claims.
a and 2b illustrate services performed in different orders according to the prior art.
The example embodiment shown in
The global part 302 comprises at least a development system 301a for customizing and development work, a quality assurance system 301b for testing functionality using representative test data, and a productive system 301c for actual productive use.
The local part 303a comprises a development system 301d for customizing and development work of local adaptations to SAP, e.g. to meet different legal requirements if part 303a is localized in a different country than the global part 302. The local part 303a further comprises a quality assurance system 301e for testing functionality using representative test data, a training system 301f for training new users, and a productive system 301g for actual productive use.
The local part 303b comprises a development system 301h, a quality assurance system 301j and a productive system 301k, but no training system. The local part 303c is a two system landscape comprising a development system 301l and a productive system 301m only.
The system landscape may differ according to the actual requirements. Fewer or more, different or differently connected or grouped systems 301 may be defined as needed.
The logical systems 301 are identical in large parts and function autonomously. The quality assurance system 301j for example resembles the productive system 301k in that it provides all the functionality, its present data and additionally special test data. New customization settings or adaptations may thus be thoroughly tested in the quality assurance system 301j without jeopardizing the productive system 301k.
The logical systems 301 are connected via logical directional transport paths 304. The transport paths 304 may provide 1:n, 1:1 or n:1 connections between systems 301, cf. e.g. system 301b and systems 301c, 301h, 301d, 301l, system 301a and system 301b, and systems 301e, 301l and system 301m, respectively. Each transport path 304 terminates in an import buffer 305 of a system 301.
The transport paths 304 serve as a network for the distribution of software services. A service may for example relate to customization of a system 301, e.g. a selection of predefined functionality in the system 301, or an adaptation of a system 301, e.g. an addition of or amendment to functionality, or to program and data updates or the like. A software service is typically provided in form of a transport request 306, cf.
A central control system 310 is provided, cf.
An exemplary list 313 is illustrated in
A program 310 is provided in the central system 314 for analyzing the layout information 311 and the project data 312 and for providing a transport track 315 that defines a route for transport requests 306 through all systems 301 of the project group in a particular order. There may be more than one transport track per system landscape, and one or more transport tracks may being assigned to a project context like a development project for the local part 303a only or a documentation project for the global part 302 only etc.
An exemplary transport track 315 corresponding to the list 313 is illustrated in
An alternative transport track 316 corresponding to the list 313 is illustrated in
The systems 301 of each part 302, 303a, 303b, 303c and the central system 310 may be located and simultaneously executed in a single computer, but are distributed across separate hardware. Preferably, the global part 302 and the local parts 303a, 303b, 303c each run on physically separate computer systems, which themselves may comprise different computers.
An example implementation of the local part 303a may comprise, cf.
Connected to the data base layer 401 by a suitable network 404, e.g. a LAN, is an application layer 405 for execution of the software of the systems 301d, 301e, 301f and 301g. The application layer 405 comprises one or more application servers 406.
Finally, connected to the application layer 405 by a suitable network 407, e.g. a LAN, is a presentation layer 408 for the graphical user interface (GUI). The presentation layer 408 comprises dumb terminals 409, Personal Computers 410 and/or wireless access devices 411 like PDAs.
The method according to an example embodiment of the invention is now described with reference to
Turning first to
The routing of transport requests is effected by the program 314 in the central system 310. The program 314 communicates with the systems 301 to inform them via which transport paths 304 to forward a transport request 306. The systems 301 contact the central system 310 upon approval of an import, and inquire about the further route for the imported transport request 306. This is exemplifies in the embodiment of
Although the foregoing has been a description of an example embodiment of the invention, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art upon review of this disclosure that numerous variations and modifications may be made in the invention. For example, instead of using SAP R/3 Release 4.5, other SAP and non-SAP systems may benefit from the invention.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
04025505 | Oct 2004 | EP | regional |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5237688 | Calvert et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5495610 | Shing et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5608721 | Natarajan et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5745767 | Rosen et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5845090 | Collins, III et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5859977 | Nishiyama et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5860007 | Soni et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5953533 | Fink et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6110228 | Albright et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6256773 | Bowman-Amuah | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263358 | Lee et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6308173 | Glasser et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6405364 | Bowman-Amuah | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6513132 | Suzuki | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6606744 | Mikurak | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6662357 | Bowman-Amuah | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6718535 | Underwood | Apr 2004 | B1 |
7020690 | Haitsuka et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7107331 | Gava et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7721257 | Demuth et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7725891 | Demuth et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7853651 | Demuth et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877730 | Demuth et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7926056 | Lier et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8069435 | Lai | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8234621 | Killisperger et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
20010052074 | Pensak et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020026592 | Gavrila et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020103851 | Kikinis | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020129356 | Hellerstein et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020156798 | Larue et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020169878 | Orenshteyn | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020174164 | Hayashi | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184398 | Orenshteyn | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020198725 | Piepenbrink et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030040974 | Chauvin et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030084350 | Eibach et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093516 | Parsons et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030142627 | Chiu et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20040010708 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040060044 | Das et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073720 | Clough et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040081183 | Monza et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040117795 | Wang et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040267935 | Patiejunas | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050080888 | Walter | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050209732 | Audimoolam et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210501 | Zigmond et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060026278 | Yu | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060080653 | Siwatu et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060112189 | Demuth et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060117311 | Demuth et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060123392 | Demuth et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060123407 | Demuth et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143614 | Lier et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149813 | Janik | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060155832 | Demuth et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060164257 | Giubbini | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060203812 | Demuth et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070038610 | Omoigui | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070233854 | Bukovec et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080183840 | Khedouri et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20100058287 | Sundararajan et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2001265603 | Sep 2001 | JP |
WO-0163482 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO-03060718 | Jul 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
B. Richards, RTP: a transport layer implementation project, 2001, 8 pages. |
Dangelmaier et al., CIDP—on workflow-based client integration in complex client oriented design projects, Apr. 1999, 6 pages. |
Bawtree, Hugh , “A tool for managing change; Software Development”, XP-002321302, (Aug. 2000),18 pgs. |
Dabrowski, C , et al., “Understanding self healing in service discovery systems”, XP-002323534, 6 pgs. |
Hodgson, Alan , “Intel eBusiness Engineering Release Management and Application Landing”, XP-002321303 Intel Technology Journal, Q4, (2000),1-9. |
IBM Document Center, “Publication information”, XP-2325608, (Observed Apr. 21, 2005),1 pg. |
Szallies, Constantin , “On Using the Observer Design Pattern”, XP-002323533, (Aug. 21, 1997),9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/261,816, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 28, 2009”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/261,816, Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2009”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/261,816, Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 30, 2008”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/261,816, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 28, 2009”, 11 Pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/261,816, Response filed Mar. 18, 2009 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 30, 2008”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/261,816, Response filed Aug. 11, 2009 to Advisory Action mailed Jul. 28, 2009”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/261,816, Response filed Jul. 10, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2009”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,043, Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 27, 2009”, 11 Pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Advisory Action mailed Jun. 30, 2009”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2009”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2009”, 16 Pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Non-Final Office Action mailed Nov. 28, 2008”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Response filed Jan. 30, 2009 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Nov. 28, 2008”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Response filed Jun. 15, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2009”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Response filed Dec. 4, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2009”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,442, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 7, 2009”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,442, Non-Final Office Action mailed Aug. 31, 2009”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,442, Response filed Apr. 27, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 7, 2009”, 17 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,442, Response filed Nov. 18, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Aug. 31, 2009”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 1, 2009”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2009”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 30, 2008”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 15, 2009”, 10 Pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Pre-Appeal Brief Request mailed Jul. 20, 2009”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Response filed Mar. 9, 2009 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 30, 2008”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Response filed Jun. 15, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2009”, 11 pgs. |
IBM Corporation, Tivoli software distribution users guide 4.1, (636 pages) XP-002321301 Relevant pgs, as per Dr. Verhasselt—For matters 78EP04, 78EP05, 78EP06: pp. 251, 262, 407, 436, 439, 443. For matter 78EP07: pp. 5, 10, 11, 163, 176, 177; for matter 78EP10: pp. 1, 4, 12, 251, 252, 449, 450, 452, 577., (2001), 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 251, 252, 262, 407, 436, 439, 443, 449, 450, 452, 577. |
IBM Corporation, IBM Tivoli Configuration Manager—User's Guide for Software Distribution—Version 4.2, XP-2325607, (Oct. 2002), 1-358. |
McFarland Metzger, Sue S, “SAP R/3 change and transport management : the official SAP guide / (SAP R/3—Systemlandschaft Implementieren und warten)”, XP-002325774, (Jan. 12, 2000), 419, 461, 465. |
Schneider-Neureither, Andreas (ED), “SAP System Landscape Optimization”, SAP Press, 2004, ISBN 1-59229-026-4, (2004), 73-78; 96-100. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/261,816, Notice of Allowance mailed Jan. 12, 2010”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/261,816, Supplemental Examiner Interview Summary filed Nov. 11, 2009”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,043, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 12, 2010”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,043, Response filed Jan. 21, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 27, 2009”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,326, Final Office Action mailed Oct. 13, 2010”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,326, Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 26, 2010”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,326, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 13, 2010”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,326, Response filed Jul. 26, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 26, 2010”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,326, Response filed Nov. 9, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Oct. 13, 2010”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Appeal Brief filed Jun. 22, 2010”, 26 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Decision on Pre-Appeal Brief mailed Jun. 3, 2010”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Nov. 9, 2009”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 8, 2010”, 19 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Examiner's Answer to Appeal Brief mailed Sep. 16, 2010”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Final Office Action mailed Mar. 9, 2010”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Pre-Appeal Brief Request filed Apr. 15, 2010”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,442, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 19, 2010”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,442, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 10, 2010”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,442, Response filed Jun. 9, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 19, 2010”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Decision on Pre-Appeal Brief Request mailed Aug. 20, 2009”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Aug. 17, 2009”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,543, Notice of Allowance mailed Jan. 7, 2010”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,343, Appeal Decision mailed Oct. 11, 2013”, 9 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060123392 A1 | Jun 2006 | US |