Methods and apparatus for remote method invocation

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 6487607
  • Patent Number
    6,487,607
  • Date Filed
    Friday, March 20, 1998
    28 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, November 26, 2002
    23 years ago
Abstract
Remote method invocation using a generic proxy class. A client machine transmits a call for invocation of a method of a remote object including an identifier for the method object. A server machine receives the identifier and uses generic code to invoke the method object and return an indication of the invoked method along with any relevant parameters.
Description




FIELD OF THE INVENTION




The present invention relates to a system and method for transmitting objects between machines in a distributed system and more particularly relates to methods for invocation of remote methods in a distributed system.




BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION




Distributed programs that concentrate on point-to-point data transmission can often be adequately and efficiently handled using special-purpose protocols for remote terminal access and file transfer. Such protocols are tailored to a specific program and, therefore, do not provide a foundation on which to build a variety of distributed programs (e.g., distributed operating systems, electronic mail systems, conferencing systems, etc.).




While conventional transport services can be used as the basis for building distributed programs, these services exhibit many organizational problems, such as the use of different data types in different machines, lack of facilities for synchronization, and no provision for a limited programming paradigm.




Distributed systems usually contain a number of different types of machines interconnected by communications networks. Each machine has its own internal data types, its own address alignment rules, and its own operating system. This heterogeneity causes problems when building distributed systems. As a result, program developers must include in programs developed for such heterogeneous distributed systems the capability of dealing with ensuring that information is handled and interpreted consistently on different machines.




However, one simplification is afforded by noting that a large proportion of programs use a request and response interaction between processes where the initiator (i.e., program initiating a communication) is blocked waiting until the response is returned and is thus idle during this time. This can be modeled by a procedure call mechanism between processes. One such mechanism is referred to as the remote procedure call (RPC).




RPC is a mechanism for providing synchronized communication between two processes (e.g., program, applet, etc.) running on the same machine or different machines. In a simple case, one process, e.g., a client program, sends a message to another process, e.g., a server program. In this case, it is not necessary for the processes to be synchronized either when the message is sent or received. It is possible for the client program to transmit the message and then begin a new activity, or for the server program's environment to buffer the incoming message until the server program is ready to process a new message.




RPC, however, imposes constraints on synchronism because it closely models a local procedure call within the calling process, which requires passing parameters in one direction, blocking the calling process until a called procedure of the server program is complete, and then returning a response. RPC thus involves two message transfers, and the synchronization of the two processes for the duration of the call.




The RPC mechanism is usually implemented in two processing parts using the local procedure call paradigm, one part being on the client side and the other part being on the server side. Both of these parts will be described below with reference to FIG.


1


.





FIG. 1

is a diagram illustrating the flow of call information using an RPC mechanism. As shown in

FIG. 1

, a client program


100


issues a call (step


102


). The RPC mechanism


101


then packs the call as arguments of a call packet (step


103


), which the RPC mechanism


101


then transmits to a server program


109


(step


104


). The call packet also contains information to identify the client program


100


that first sent the call. After the call packet is transmitted (step


104


), the RPC mechanism


101


enters a wait state during which it waits for a response from the server program


109


.




The RPC mechanism


108


for the server program


109


(which may be the same RPC mechanism as the RPC mechanism


101


when the server program


109


is on the same platform as the client program


100


) receives the call packet (step


110


), unpacks the arguments of the call from the call packet (step


111


), identifies, using the call information, the server program


109


to which the call was addressed, and provides the call arguments to the server program


109


.




The server program receives the call (step


112


), processes the call by invoking the appropriate procedure (step


115


), and returns a response to the RPC mechanism


108


(step


116


). The RPC mechanism


108


then packs the response in a response packet (step


114


) and transmits it to the client program


100


(step


113


).




Receiving the response packet (step


107


) triggers the RPC mechanism


101


to exit the wait state and unpack the response from the response packet (step


106


). RPC


101


then provides the response to the client program


100


in response to the call (step


105


). This is the process flow of the typical RPC mechanism modeled after the local procedure call paradigm. Since the RPC mechanism uses the local procedure call paradigm, the client program


100


is blocked at the call until a response is received. Thus, the client program


100


does not continue with its own processing after sending the call; rather, it waits for a response from the server program


109


.




The Java™ programming language is an object-oriented programming language that is typically compiled into a platform-independent format, using a bytecode instruction set, which can be executed on any platform supporting the Java virtual machine (JVM). This language is described, for example, in a text entitled “The Java Language Specification” by James Gosling, Bill Joy, and Guy Steele, Addison-Wesley, 1996, which is incorporated herein by reference. The JVM is described, for example, in a text entitled “The Java Virtual Machine Specification,” by Tim Lindholm and Frank Yellin, Addison Wesley, 1996, which is incorporated herein by reference. Java and Java-based trademarks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other countries.




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. A class thus defines the type of an object. 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 or subclass.




Because the JVM may be implemented on any type of platform, implementing distributed programs using the JVM significantly reduces the difficulties associated with developing programs for heterogenous distributed systems. Moreover, the JVM uses a remote method invocation (RMI) system that enables communication among programs of the system. RMI is explained in, for example, the following document, which is incorporated herein by reference: Remote Method Invocation Specification, Sun Microsystems, Inc. (1997), which is available via universal resource locator (URL) www.javasoft.com/products/jdk/1.1/docs/guide/rmi/spec/rmiTOC.doc.html.





FIG. 2

is a diagram illustrating the flow of objects in an object-oriented distributed system


200


including machines


201


and


202


for transmitting and receiving method invocations using the JVM. In system


200


, machine


201


uses RMI


205


for responding to a call from object


203


to invoke a method on remote object


204


by converting the call, including an identification of the method and any parameters into a byte stream


207


. While machine


201


is responding to the call from object


203


, a process running on the same or another machine in system


200


may continue operation without waiting for a response.




Machine


202


receives the byte stream


207


. Using RMI


206


, machine


202


automatically converts it into executable bytecode to initiate the invocation of the method on object


204


. RMI can also be used to transport objects within the distributed system for use in connection with processes executing on remote machines.




In order to perform RMI, these machines use code referred to as stubs and skeletons created by an RMI compiler. A stub resides on a client machine and includes a reference to a remote object and acts as a proxy for the remote object. The skeleton is also a proxy for the remote object but it resides on the server machine containing the remote object. Thus, the stub resides on a client machine making a call for invocation of a method of a remote object, and the skeleton resides on a server machine containing the remote object. In addition, remote objects are referenced via interfaces, which are collections of related constants and methods. The stub and skeleton typically must be type-specific based on the type of remote object involved in the call. Therefore, varying types of stubs and skeletons must exist for RMI involving varying types of objects. Stubs and skeletons are explained in for example, the following document, which is incorporated herein by reference: Jamie Jaworski, “Java 1.1 Developer's Guide, Second Edition,” pp. 371-383, Sams.net Publishing (1997). They are also explained in the Remote Method Invocation Specification identified above.




Accordingly, a need exists for generic code for use in RMI involving varying types of objects.




SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION




A first method consistent with the present invention includes receiving a request to invoke a method of an object and determining the method to be invoked using a generic code. The method is invoked based on the determination, and an indication of the invoked method is provided.




A second method consistent with the present invention includes receiving a request to invoke a method of an object of a specific class and determining the method using a common process for all of the classes. The method is invoked based on the determination, and an indication of the invoked method is provided.




A third method consistent with the present invention includes receiving a request to invoke a first method of a first object and a second method of a second object being of a different type from the first object, and determining the first and second methods to be invoked using a common process. The first and second methods are invoked based on the determination, and an indication of the first invoked method and the second invoked method is provided.




A first apparatus consistent with the present invention receives a request to invoke a method of an object and determines the method to be invoked using a generic code. The apparatus invokes the method based on the determination and provides an indication of the invoked method.




A second apparatus consistent with the present invention receives a request to invoke a method of an object of a specific class and determines the method using a common process for all of the classes. The apparatus invokes the method based on the determination and provides an indication of the invoked method.




A third apparatus consistent with the present invention receives a request to invoke a first method of a first object and a second method of a second object being of a different type from the first object, and it determines the first and second methods to be invoked using a common process. The apparatus invokes the first and second methods based on the determination and provides an indication of the first invoked method and the second invoked method.











BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS




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





FIG. 1

is a diagram illustrating the flow of call information using an RPC mechanism;





FIG. 2

is a diagram illustrating the transmission of objects in an object-oriented distributed system;





FIG. 3

is a diagram of an exemplary distributed processing system that can be used in an implementation consistent with the present invention;





FIG. 4

is a diagram of an exemplary distributed system infrastructure;





FIG. 5

is a diagram of a computer in the distributed system infrastructure shown in

FIG. 4

;





FIG. 6

is a block diagram of a system using generic code for RMI; and





FIG. 7

is a flow chart of a process for invoking a method of a remote object using generic code.











DETAILED DESCRIPTION




Overview




A system consistent with the present invention performs remote method invocation using a generic proxy class. Generally, a client machine transmits a call for invocation of a method of a remote object including an identifier for the method object, and a server machine receives the identifier and uses generic code, not specific to any particular class, to obtain an indication of the method to be invoked, which includes any relevant parameter types. A method object is, for example, an object having code for invoking a method.




When a client receives a stub for a remote object, it is an instance of a generic proxy class that knows all the remote interfaces that the remote object implements. When the client involes a method on the stub (the generic proxy class that is type independent), the proxy's invoke method is called with the following information: the method object indicating what method the client invoked on the object; and the list of parameters for the method. A method object contains, but is not limited to, the following information: a method name; argument types; and return type(s). Each type may be either an “Object” type or a “primitive” type.




The proxy calculates a method hash for the method and transmits a call, possibly via RMI. The call contains, but is not limited to, the following information: an identifier for the object receiving the call; the method hash; and the marshalled parameters (according to the types specified in the method object). The parameter marshalling may be done in a generic proxy's code, since it only depends on knowledge of the argument types in the method object.




The server receives the call and reads the object identifier and method identifier. The method identifier is used to determine the intended method object by using a lookup table corresponding method hashes to method objects. Given the method object, the generic server-side code can uumarshal the parameters, as it can obtain the types from the method object, and it then invokes the method on the actual remote object implementation. The result of that invocation is marshalled to the client using generic code and using knowledge of the return type obtained from the method object.




The generic proxy on the client side reads the return value using the method object return type information and returns the result to the caller.




Distributed Processing System





FIG. 3

illustrates a distributed processing system


300


which can be used in an implementation consistent with the present invention. In

FIG. 3

, distributed processing system


300


contains three independent and heterogeneous platforms


301


,


302


, and


303


connected in a network configuration represented by network cloud


319


. The composition and protocol of the network configuration represented by cloud


319


is not important as long as it allows for communication of the information between platforms


301


,


302


and


303


. In addition, the use of just three platforms is merely for illustration and does not limit an implementation consistent with the present invention to the use of a particular number of platforms. Further, the specific network architecture is not crucial to embodiments consistent with this invention. For example, another network architecture that could be used in an implementation consistent with this invention would employ one platform as a network controller to which all the other platforms would be connected.




In the implementation of distributed processing system


300


, platforms


301


,


302


and


303


each include a processor


316


,


317


, and


318


respectively, and a memory,


304


,


305


, and


306


, respectively. Included within each memory


304


,


305


, and


306


, are applications


307


,


308


, and


309


, respectively, operating systems


310


,


311


, and


312


, respectively, and RMI components


313


,


314


, and


315


, respectively.




Applications


307


,


308


, and


309


can be applications or programs that are either previously written and modified to work with, or that are specially written to take advantage of, the services offered by an implementation consistent with the present invention. Applications


307


,


308


, and


309


invoke operations to be performed in accordance with an implementation consistent with this invention.




Operating systems


310


,


311


, and


312


are typically operating systems tied to the corresponding processors


316


,


317


, and


318


, respectively. The platforms


301


,


302


, and


303


can be heterogenous. For example, platform


301


has an UltraSparc® microprocessor manufactured by Sun Microsystems, Inc. as processor


316


and uses a Solaris® operating system


310


. Platform


302


has a MIPS microprocessor manufactured by Silicon Graphics Corp. as processor


317


and uses a Unix operating system


311


. Finally, platform


303


has a Pentium microprocessor manufactured by Intel Corp. as processor


318


and uses a Microsoft Windows 95 operating system


312


. An implementation consistent with the present invention is not so limited and could accommodate homogenous platforms as well.




Sun, Sun Microsystems, and Solaris, are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other countries. UltraSparc and all other SPARC trademarks are used under license and are trademarks of SPARC International, Inc. in the United States and other countries. Products bearing SPARC trademarks are based upon an architecture developed by Sun Microsystems, Inc.




Memories


304


,


305


, and


306


serve several functions, such as general storage for the associated platform. Another function is to store applications


307


,


308


, and


309


, RMI components


313


,


314


, and


315


, and operating systems


310


,


311


, and


312


during execution by the respective processor


316


,


317


, and


318


. In addition, portions of memories


304


,


305


, and


306


may constitute shared memory available to all of the platforms


301


,


302


, and


303


in network


319


. Note that RMI components


313


,


314


, and


315


operate in conjunction with a JVM, which is not shown for the purpose of simplifying the figure.




Distributed System Infrastructure




Systems and methods consistent with the present invention may also operate within an exemplary particular distributed system


400


, which will be described with reference to

FIGS. 4 and 5

. This distributed system


400


is comprised of various components, including hardware and software, to (1) allow users of the system to share services and resources over a network of many devices; (2) provide programmers with tools and programming patterns that allow development of robust, secured distributed systems; and (3) simplify the task of administering the distributed system. To accomplish these goals, distributed system


400


utilizes the Java programming environment to allow both code and data to be moved from device to device in a seamless manner. Accordingly, distributed system


400


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.




In distributed system


400


of

FIGS. 4 and 5

, different computers and devices are federated into what appears to the user to be a single system. By appearing as a single system, distributed system


400


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. Distributed system


400


may contain thousands of devices operated by users who are geographically disperse, but who agree on basic notions of trust, administration, and policy.




Within an 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 programs 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.




Distributed system


400


is comprised of computer


402


, a computer


404


, and a device


406


interconnected by a network


408


. Device


406


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


408


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


400


, one skilled in the art will appreciate that distributed system


400


may include additional computers or devices.





FIG. 5

depicts computer


402


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


400


. One skilled in the art will appreciate that computer


404


or device


406


may be similarly configured. Computer


402


includes a memory


502


, a secondary storage device


504


, a central processing unit (CPU)


506


, an input device


508


, and a video display


510


. Memory


502


includes a lookup service


512


, a discovery server


514


, and a Java runtime system


516


. The Java runtime system


516


includes the Java RMI system


518


and a JVM


520


. Secondary storage device


504


includes a Java space


522


.




As mentioned above, distributed system


400


is based on the Java programming environment and thus makes use of the Java runtime system


516


. The Java runtime system


516


includes the Java API libraries, 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 libraries provide a single common API across all operating systems to which the Java runtime system 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


516


is provided as part of the Java software development kit available from Sun Microsystems, Inc. of Mountain View, Calif.




JVM


520


also facilitates platform independence. JVM


520


acts like an abstract computing machine, receiving instructions from programs in the form of bytecodes and interpreting these bytecodes by dynamically converting them into a form for execution, such as object code, and executing them. RMI


518


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 JVM are also provided as part of the Java software development kit.




Lookup service


512


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 distributed system


400


. Lookup service


512


contains one object for each service within the Djinn, and each object contains various methods that facilitate access to the corresponding service. Lookup service


512


is described in U.S. patent application entitled “Method and System for Facilitating Access to a Lookup Service,” which was previously incorporated herein by reference.




Discovery server


514


detects when a new device is added to distributed system


400


, 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 lookup service


512


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 lookup service


512


. The process of boot and join is described in U.S. patent application entitled “Apparatus and Method for providing Downloadable Code for Use in Communicating with a Device in a Distributed System,” which was previously incorporated herein by reference.




A Java space


522


is an object repository used by programs within distributed system


400


to store objects. Programs use a Java space


522


to store objects persistently as well as to make them accessible to other devices within distributed system


400


. Java spaces are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/971,529, entitled “Database System Employing Polymorphic Entry and Entry Matching,” assigned to a common assignee, and filed on Nov. 17, 1997, which is incorporated herein by reference. One skilled in the art will appreciate that an exemplary distributed system


400


may contain many lookup services, discovery servers, and Java spaces.




Data Flow in a Distributed Processing System





FIG. 6

is a block diagram of an object-oriented distributed network


600


connecting machines


601


and


606


, such as computers or virtual machines executing on one or more computers, or the machines described with reference to

FIGS. 3

,


4


, and


5


. Network


600


includes a client machine


601


containing RMI


602


and associated code


603


. A server machine


606


includes RMI


605


and remote object


608


. In operation, RMI


602


transmits a call or request


609


to RMI


605


, requesting invocation of a method of remote object


608


. RMI


602


uses a generic proxy


604


for transmitting call


609


. Generic proxy


604


provides an advantage of not being type-specific so that it may invoke methods of varying types of remote objects. Table 1 contains a class definition written in the Java programming language for a generic proxy class by Netscape Communications Corp. and extended to allow the generic proxy to support invocation to methods among a set of interfaces.




Table 1




package java.lang.reflect;




public class Proxy {




protected native Proxy(Class [ ]implementsInterface);




protected abstract Object invoke(Method method, Object [ ]args);




}




In place of a type-specific stub for a remote object, a generic proxy, initialized with the set of interfaces which indicates all methods that may be invoked on such a proxy, is used instead. When a call is made on the proxy, the proxy's “invoke” method is passed a “method object” which includes information about the method being invoked and also passes the required arguments bundled into an array of objects.




RMI


605


returns a response


610


using generic code


607


. The generic code is used to do the following: look up the method based on the method identifier; unmarshal the parameters based on their types as indicated in the method object; invoke the method on a remote object implementation; and marshal the return result(s) (based on the type) to the client. The response may include an identification of the type of object transmitted, the data constituting the state of the object, and a network-accessible location in the form of a URL for code that is associated with the object. The response may be transmitted as a stream.




Streams used in the Java programming language, including input and output streams, are known in the art and an explanation, which is incorporated herein by reference, appears in, for example, a text entitled “The Java Tutorial: Object-Oriented Programming for the Internet,” pp. 325-53, by Mary Campione and Kathy Walrath, Addison-Wesley, 1996. Object streams are explained in, for example, the Object Serialization Specification, available from Sun Microsystems, Inc. URLs are known in the art and an explanation, which is incorporated herein by reference, appears in, for example, a text entitled “The Java Tutorial: Object-Oriented Programming for the Internet,” pp. 494-507, by Mary Campione and Kathy Walrath, Addison-Wesley, 1996.





FIG. 7

is a flow chart of a process


700


for RMI using generic code not specific to any particular type of remote objects on which the method is invoked. An application in client machine


601


invokes a method on a stub that is an instance of the generic proxy class (step


701


). The generic proxy instance's “invoke” method is called with the method object and parameter list bundled in an object array (step


702


). The generic proxy transmits an identifier, which may include an object id, method hash and marshals parameter to a server machine (step


703


).




Further details on the use of a method hash are disclosed in U.S. patent application entitled “Method and System for Deterministic Hashes to Identify Remote Methods,” which was previously incorporated herein by reference. Marshalling involves constructing an object from a byte stream including code or a reference to code for use in the construction. Marshalling and unmarshalling are explained in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/950,756, filed on Oct. 15, 1997, and entitled “Deferred Reconstruction of Objects and Remote Loading in a Distributed System,” now allowed, which is incorporated herein by reference.




Server machine


606


reads the object id and method hash (step


704


), and it looks up the method object for the call using the method hash (step


705


). Server machine


606


unmarshals the parameters for the operation given the types of the parameters specified in the method object (step


706


). Step


706


may involve building a method table, which compiles values for particular methods and is initialized when a remote object is created and exported. The generic code creates a correspondence between a method hash and a particular method object. Thus, by using the hashes in the method table, different skeletons typed to different types of objects is not required for method invocation to correspond method hash to method object.




Server machine


606


invokes the method on the remote object implementation (step


707


), and it marshals the return result(s) to the caller using the return type information in the method object (step


708


). The generic proxy umnarshals the return result(s) using the return type information in the method object (step


709


) and returns result(s) to the caller, client machine


601


(step


710


).




Machines implementing the steps shown in

FIG. 7

may include computer processors for performing the functions, as shown in

FIGS. 3

,


4


,


5


, and


6


. They may include modules or programs configured to cause the processors to perform the above functions. They may also include computer program products stored in a memory. The computer program products may include a computer-readable medium or media having computer-readable code embodied therein for causing the machines to perform functions described above. The media may include a computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave and representing sequences of instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to securely address a peripheral device at an absolute address by performing the method described in this specification. The media ray also include data structures for use in performing the method described in this specification.




Although the illustrative embodiments of the systems consistent with the present invention are described with reference to a computer system implementing the Java programming language on a JVM, the invention is equally applicable to other computer systems processing code from different programming languages. Specifically, the invention may be implemented with both object-oriented and nonobject-oriented programming systems. Also, although an embodiment consistent with the present invention have been described as operating in the Java programming environment, one skilled in the art will appreciate that the present invention can be used in other programming environments as well.




While the present invention has been described in connection with an exemplary embodiment, it will be understood that many modifications will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and this application is intended to cover any adaptations or variations thereof. For example, various types of generic code may be used without departing from the scope of the invention. This invention should be limited only by the claims and equivalents thereof.



Claims
  • 1. A method for remote method invocation in a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, comprising:receiving a request to invoke a method of an object; determining the method to be invoked using a generic code, wherein the generic code is not pregenerated; invoking the method based on the determination; and providing an indication of the invoked method.
  • 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the receiving includesproviding an identifier associated with the method.
  • 3. A method for remote method invocation in a distributed object oriented system having multiple machines and defining a plurality of classes, comprising:receiving a request to invoke a method of an object of a specific class; determining the method using a common process for all of the classes wherein the common process is not pregenerated; invoking the method based on the determination; and providing an indication of the invoked method.
  • 4. The method of claim 3 wherein the receiving includesproviding an identifier associated with the method.
  • 5. A method for remote method invocation in a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, comprising:receiving a request to invoke a first method of a first object and a second method of a second object being of a different type from the first object; determining the first and second methods to be invoked using a common process, wherein the common process is not pregenerated; invoking the first and second methods based on the determination; and providing an indication of the first invoked method and the second invoked method.
  • 6. An apparatus for remote method invocation in a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, comprising:a module configured to receive a request to invoke a method of an object; a module configured to determine the method to be invoked using a generic code, wherein the generic code is not pregenerated; a module configured to invoke the method based on the determination; and a module configured to provide an indication of the invoked method.
  • 7. The apparatus of claim 6 wherein the receive module includesa module configured to provide an identifier associated with the method.
  • 8. An apparatus for remote method invocation in a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, comprising:a module configured to receive a request to invoke a method of an object of a specific class; a module configured to determine the method using a common process for all of the classes, wherein the common process is not pregenerated; a module configured to invoke the method based on the determination; and a module configured to provide an indication of the invoked method.
  • 9. The apparatus of claim 8 wherein the receive module includesa module configured to provide an identifier associated with the method.
  • 10. An apparatus for remote method invocation in a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, comprising:a module configured to receive a request to invoke a first method of a first object and a second method of a second object being of a different type from the first object; a module configured to determine the first and second methods to be invoked using a common process, wherein the common process is not pregenerated; a module configured to invoke the first and second methods based on the determination; and a module configured to provide an indication of the first invoked method and the second invoked method.
  • 11. A system for transmitting objects in a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, comprising:a first machine; a second machine; a network connecting the first machine with the second machine; and an apparatus for transmitting objects, the apparatus including: a module configured to receive a request to invoke a method of an object; a module configured to determine the method to be invoked using a generic code, wherein the generic code is not pregenerated; a module configured to invoke the method based on the determination; and a module configured to provide an indication of the invoked method.
  • 12. The system of claim 11 wherein the receive module includesa module configured to provide an identifier associated with the method.
  • 13. A system for transmitting objects in a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, comprising:a first machine; a second machine; a network connecting the first machine with the second machine; and an apparatus for transmitting objects, the apparatus including: a module configured to receive a request to invoke a method of an object of a specific class; a module configured to determine the method using a common process for of the classes, wherein the common process is not pregenerated; a module configured to invoke the method based on the determination; and a module configured to provide an indication of the invoked method.
  • 14. The system of claim 13 wherein the receive module includesa module configured to provide an identifier associated with the method.
  • 15. A system for transmitting objects in a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, comprising:a first machine; a second machine; a network connecting the first machine with the second machine; and an apparatus for transmitting objects, the apparatus including: a module configured to receive a request to invoke a first method of a first object and a second method of a second object being of a different type from the first object; a module configured to determine the first and second methods to be invoked using a common process, wherein the common process is not pregenerated; a module configured to invoke the first and second methods based on the determination; and a module configured to provide an indication of the first invoked method and the second invoked method.
  • 16. A computer program product, comprising:a computer-readable medium containing instructions for controlling a computer system to perform a method, the method including: receiving a request to invoke a method of an object; determining the method to be invoked using a generic code, wherein the generic code is not pregenerated; invoking the method based on the determination; and providing an indication of the invoked method.
  • 17. The computer program product of claim 16 wherein the receiving includesproviding an identifier associated with the method.
  • 18. A computer program product, comprising:a computer-readable medium containing instructions for controlling a computer system to perform a method, the method including: receiving a request to invoke a method of an object of a specific class; determining the method using a common process for all of the classes, wherein the common process is not pregenerated; invoking the method based on the determination; and providing an indication of the invoked method.
  • 19. The computer program product of claim 18 wherein the receiving includesproviding an identifier associated with the method.
  • 20. A computer program product, comprising:a computer-readable medium containing instructions for controlling a computer system to perform a method, the method including: receiving a request to invoke a first method of a first object and a second method of a second object being of a different type from the first object; determining the first and second methods to be invoked using a common process, wherein the common process is not pregenerated; invoking the first method and second methods based on the determination; and providing an indication of the first invoked method and the second invoked method.
  • 21. An apparatus for remote method invocation in a distributed system comprised of multiple machines, comprising:means for receiving a request to invoke a method of an object; means for determining the method to be invoked using a generic code, wherein the generic code is not pregenerated; means for invoking the method based on the determination; and means for providing an indication of the invoked method.
  • 22. A distributed system for remote method invocation comprising:a first module for requesting an invocation of a remote object based on a generic proxy; and a second module for executing generic code to invoke a remote object corresponding to the invocation request and returning an associated response to the first module.
  • 23. The distributed system of claim 22, wherein the generic proxy is initialized to indicate a plurality of executable methods.
  • 24. A distributed processing system comprising:a client machine having a remote procedure call module; a serve machine having a remote object with at least one method; a network communicably connecting the client machine and the server machine, wherein when a code executing on the client machine seeks to invoke the method of the remote object, the client remote procedure uses a generic proxy that lacks a specific type to transmit a request to the remote object.
  • 25. A process for invoking remote methods in a network, comprising:providing a proxy with an invoke method; and upon receipt by the proxy of a call to invoke a method of a remote object of a particular type, passing to the invoke method a method object including information about the remote method to be invoked and any required parameters for processing by the remote method, wherein the proxy lacks a specific type so that it may be used to invoke methods of different types of remote objects.
REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The following identified U.S. patent applications are relied upon and are incorporated by reference in this application as if fully set forth. Provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 60/076,048, entitled “Distributed Computing System,” filed on Feb. 26, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,923, entitled “Method and System for Leasing Storage,”, and filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,350. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,838, entitled “Method, Apparatus, and Product for Leasing of Delegation Certificates in a Distributed System,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,247,026. 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 Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,421,704. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,916, entitled “Leasing for Failure Detection,” and filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No 6,016,500. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,933, entitled “Method for Transporting Behavior in Event Based System,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998. 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, ” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,272,559. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/045,652, entitled “Method and System for Deterministic Hashes to Identify Remote Methods,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,134,603. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,790, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Determining Status of Remote Objects in a Distributed System,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,930, entitled “Downloadable Smart Proxies for Performing Processing Associated with a Remote Procedure Call in a Distributed System,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,393,497. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,917, entitled “Suspension and Continuation of Remote Methods,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,237,024. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,835, entitled “Method and System for Multi-Entry and Multi-Template Matching in a Database,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,083. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,839, entitled “Method and System for In-Place Modifications in a Database,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now abandoned. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,945, entitled “Method and System for Typesafe Attribute Matching in a Database,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now abandoned. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,931, entitled “Dynamic Lookup Service in a Distributed System,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,611. 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,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,826, entitled “Method and System for Facilitating Access to a Lookup Service,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,932, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Dynamically Verifying Information in a Distributed System,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/030,840, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Dynamic Distributed Computing Over a Network,” and filed on Feb. 26, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,936, entitled “An Interactive Design Tool for Persistent Shared Memory Spaces,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,934, entitled “Polymorphic Token-Based Control,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,915, entitled “Stack-Based Access Control,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,138,238. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,944, entitled “Stack-Based Security Requirements,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,746. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/044,837, entitled “Per-Method Designation of Security Requirements,” filed on Mar. 20, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,282,652.

US Referenced Citations (160)
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
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
5088036 Ellis et al. Feb 1992 A
5109486 Seymour Apr 1992 A
5187787 Skeen et al. Feb 1993 A
5218699 Brandle et al. Jun 1993 A
5257369 Skeen et al. Oct 1993 A
5293614 Ferguson et al. Mar 1994 A
5297283 Kelly et al. Mar 1994 A
5307490 Davidson et al. Apr 1994 A
5311591 Fischer May 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
5481721 Serlet et al. Jan 1996 A
5504921 Dev et al. Apr 1996 A
5511197 Hill et al. Apr 1996 A
5524244 Robinson et al. Jun 1996 A
5548726 Pettus Aug 1996 A
5553282 Parrish et al. Sep 1996 A
5555367 Premerlani et al. Sep 1996 A
5555427 Aoe et al. Sep 1996 A
5557798 Skeen et al. Sep 1996 A
5560003 Nilsen et al. Sep 1996 A
5561785 Blandy et al. Oct 1996 A
5577231 Scaizi et al. Nov 1996 A
5594921 Pettus Jan 1997 A
5603031 White et al. Feb 1997 A
5617537 Yamada et al. Apr 1997 A
5628005 Hurvig May 1997 A
5640564 Hamilton et al. Jun 1997 A
5644768 Periwal et al. Jul 1997 A
5652888 Burgess Jul 1997 A
5655148 Richman et al. Aug 1997 A
5659751 Heninger Aug 1997 A
5671225 Hooper et al. 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
5706435 Barbara Jan 1998 A
5706502 Foley et al. Jan 1998 A
5724588 Hill et al. Mar 1998 A
5727145 Nessett et al. Mar 1998 A
5737607 Hamilton et al. Apr 1998 A
5745678 Herzberg et al. Apr 1998 A
5745695 Gilchrist et al. Apr 1998 A
5745703 Cetjin 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
5758344 Prasad et al. May 1998 A
5761656 Ben-Schachar Jun 1998 A
5764897 Khalidi Jun 1998 A
5768532 Megerian Jun 1998 A
5774551 Wu et al. Jun 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
5802367 Held et al. Sep 1998 A
5808911 Tucker et al. Sep 1998 A
5809507 Cavanaugh, III Sep 1998 A
5812819 Rodwin et al. Sep 1998 A
5813013 Shakib et al. Sep 1998 A
5815149 Mutschler, III et al. Sep 1998 A
5815709 Waldo et al. Sep 1998 A
5815711 Sakamoto et al. Sep 1998 A
5818448 Katiyar Oct 1998 A
5829022 Watanabe et al. Oct 1998 A
5832219 Pettus Nov 1998 A
5832529 Wollrath et al. Nov 1998 A
5832593 Wurst Nov 1998 A
5835737 Sand et al. Nov 1998 A
5842018 Atkinson et al. Nov 1998 A
5844553 Hao et al. Dec 1998 A
5845090 Collins, III et al. Dec 1998 A
5845129 Wendorf et al. Dec 1998 A
5860004 Fowlow et al. Jan 1999 A
5860153 Matena et al. Jan 1999 A
5864862 Kriens et al. Jan 1999 A
5864866 Henckel et al. Jan 1999 A
5872928 Lewis et al. Feb 1999 A
5872973 Mitchell et al. Feb 1999 A
5875335 Beard Feb 1999 A
5878411 Borroughs 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
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
5987506 Carter et al. Nov 1999 A
5999179 Kekic et al. Dec 1999 A
5999988 Pelegri-Llopart et al. Dec 1999 A
6003763 Gallagher et al. Dec 1999 A
6009103 Woundy 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
6049673 McComb et al. Apr 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
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
6216138 Wells et al. Apr 2001 B1
6226746 Scheifler May 2001 B1
6247091 Lovett Jun 2001 B1
6263379 Atkinson et al. Jul 2001 B1
6282295 Young et al. Aug 2001 B1
6282568 Sondur et al. Aug 2001 B1
6339783 Horikiri Jan 2002 B1
Foreign Referenced Citations (40)
Number Date Country
0 300 516 Jan 1989 EP
0 351 536 Jan 1990 EP
0 384 339 Feb 1990 EP
0 472 874 Mar 1992 EP
0 474 340 Mar 1992 EP
497 022 Aug 1992 EP
0 555 997 Aug 1993 EP
0 565 849 Oct 1993 EP
0 569 195 Nov 1993 EP
0 625 750 Nov 1994 EP
0 635 792 Jan 1995 EP
0 651 328 May 1995 EP
0 660 231 Jun 1995 EP
0 718 761 Dec 1995 EP
0 697 655 Feb 1996 EP
0 767 432 Apr 1997 EP
0 810 524 May 1997 EP
0 778 520 Jun 1997 EP
0 794 493 Oct 1997 EP
0 803 810 Oct 1997 EP
0 803 811 Oct 1997 EP
0 805 393 Nov 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
0 262 825 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 (126)
Entry
Java Remote Method Invocation Specification, Feb. 10, 1997, Sun Microsystems, pp. 19-21.
Aldrich et al., “Providing Easier Access to Remote Objects in Client-Server Systems,” System Sciences, 1998, Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii Internat'l. Conference, Jan. 6-9, 1998, pp. 366-375.
Aldrich et al., “Providing Easier Access to Remote Objects in Distributed Systems,” Calif. Institute of Technology, www.cs.caltech.edu/%7Ejedi/paper/jedipaper.html, Nov. 21, 1997.
Dave et al., “Proxies, Application Interfaces, and Distributed Systems,” XP 002009478, IEEE, pp. 212-220, Sep. 1992.
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.
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “Local Network Monitoring to Populate Access Agent Directory,” vol. 36, No. 09A, pp. 403-405, Sep. 1993.
MUX-Elektronik, Java 1.1 Interactive Course, www.IIs.se/˜mux/javaic.html, 1995.
Stevenson, “Token-Based Consistency of Replicated Servers,” IEEE, CH2686-4/89/0000/0179, pp.179-183, 1989.
Alexander, et al., “Active Bridging”, Proceedings of the ACM/SIGCOMM'97 Conference, Cannes, France, Sep., 1997.
Anonymous: “Change-Notification Service for Shared Files” IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 36, No. 8, Aug., 1993, pp. 77-82, XP002108713 New York, US.
Anonymous: “Resource Preemption for Priority Scheduling,” IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 16, No. 6, Nov., 1973, 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,” Computer, 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”, Parallel Computing, NL, Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam, vol. 9, No. 2, Jan. 9, 1989, pp. 179-192.
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., 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/RFC/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, Jul., 1996, pp. 268-296.
Guth, Rob: “JavaOne: Sun to Expand Java Distributed Computing Effort”, “HTTP://WWW.SUNWORLD.COM/SWOL-02-1998/SWOL-02-SUNSPOTS.HTML,” XP-002109935, 1998, p. 1.
Hamilton et al., “Subcontract: a flexible base for distributed programming”; Proceedings of 14th Symposium of Operating System Principles, Dec., 1993.
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, Jun., 1996.
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, 1990, pp. 351-360.
IBM (TM) Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “Object Location Algorithm,” vol. 36, No. 09B, Sep. 1993, pp. 257-258.
IBM (TM) Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “Retrieval of Qualified Variables Using Extendible Hashing,” vol. 36, No. 12, Dec., 1993, pp. 301-303.
IBM: “Chapter 6—Distributed SOM (DSOM)” Somobjects Developer Toolkit Users Guide, Version 2.1, Oct., 1994 (1994-10), pp. 6-1-6-90.
IBM (TM) Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “Fast and Secure Stored Procedures for a Client/Server DBMS”, vol. 38, No. 01, Jan., 1995, pp. 79-82.
Jones, Richard, et al., “Garbage Collection: Algorithms for Automatic Dynamic Memory Management,” John Wiley & Sons, 1996, pp. 165-175.
Kay, Michael H. et al., “An Overview of the Raleigh Object-Oriented Database System”, ICL Technical Journal, vol. 7, No. 4, Nov., 1991, pp. 780-798, 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, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, pp. 203-215.
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. 1-6, 1989, pp. 23-35.
Wu, Xuequn, “A Type system for an Object-Oriented Database System,” Proccedings of the International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Sep. 11-13, 1991, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 333-338.
Yemini, Y. and S. da silva, “Towards Programmable Networks”, IFIP/IEEE International Workshop on Distributed Systems: Operations and Management, L'Aquila, Italy, Oct., 1996, pp. 1-11.
Yin J. et al., “Using Leases to Support Server Driven Consistency in Large-Scale Systems”, Computer Services Department, University of Texas at Austin, Feb., 1998, pp. 285-294.
Mullender, Distributed Systems, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1993.
Howard et al., Scale and Performance in a Distributed File System, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 6, No. 1, Feb. 1988, pp. 51-81.
Cardelli, Obliq, A lightweight language for network objects, Nov. 5, 1993, pp. 1-37.
Dijkstra, Self-stabilizing Systems in Spite of Distributed Control, Communications of the ACM, vol. 17, No.11, Nov. 1974, pp. 643-644.
Ousterhout et al., The Sprite Network Operating System, Computer, IEEE, Feb. 1988, pp. 23-36.
Dourish, A Divergence-Based Model of Synchrony and Distribution in Collaborative Systems, Xerox Technical Report EPC-1194-102, 1994, pp. 1-10.
Sharrott et al., ObjectMap: Integrating High Performance Resources into a Distributed Object-oriented Environment, ICODP, 1995.
Birrell et al., Grapevine: An Exercise in Distributed Computing, Communications of the ACM, vol. 25, No. 4, Apr. 1982, pp. 260-274.
Transparent Network Computing, Locus Computing Corporation, Jan. 5, 1995.
Gray et al., Leases: An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Mechanism for Distributed File Cache Consistency, ACM, 1989, pp. 202-210.
Lamport et al., The Byzantine Generals Problem, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol.4, No. 3, Jul. 1982, pp. 382-401.
Dolev et al., On the Minimal Synchronism Needed for Distributed Consensus, Journal of the ACM, vol. 34, No. 1, Jan. 1987, pp. 77-97.
Mummert et al., Long Term Distributed File Reference Tracing: Implementation and Experience, Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science, Nov. 1994, pp. 1-28.
Gelernter et al., Parallel Programming in Linda, Yale University, Jan. 1985, pp. 1-21.
Cannon et al., Adding Fault-Tolerant Transaction Processing to LINDA, Software-Practice and Experience, vol. 24(5), May 1994, pp. 449-466.
Kambhatla et al., Recovery with Limited Replay: Fault-Tolerant Processes in Linda, Oregon Graduate Institute, Technical Report CSIE 90-019, Sep. 1990, pp. 1-16.
Anderson et al., Persistent Linda: Linda + Transactions + Query Processing, Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Fault Tolerant Systems, 1994, pp. 93-109.
Gelernter, Generative Communication in Linda, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 7, No. 1, Jan. 1985, pp. 80-112.
Carriero et al., Distributed Data Structures in Linda, Principals of Programming Language, 1986, pp. 1-16.
Pinakis, Using Linda as the Basis of an Operating System Microkernel, University of Western Australia, Department of Computer Science, Aug. 1993, pp. 1-165.
LINDA Database Search, Jul. 20, 1995, pp. 1-68.
Carriero et al, Distributed Data Structures in Linda, Yale Research Report YALEU/DCS/RR-438, Nov. 1985.
Agha et al., Actorspaces: An Open Distributed Programming Paradigm, University of Illinois, Report No. UIUCDCS-R-92-1766, Open Systems Laboratory TR No. 8, Nov. 1992, pp. 1-12.
Ahmed et al., A Program Building Tool for Parallel Applications, Yale University, Dec. 1, 1993, pp. 1-23.
Liskov et al., Distributed Object Management in Thor, International Workshop on Distributed Object Management, 1992, pp. 12.
Coulouris et al., Distributed Systems Concepts and Designs, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1994.
Birrell et al., Network Objects, DEC SRC Research Report 115, Feb. 28, 1994.
Birrell et al., Distributed Garbage Collection for Network Objects, DEC SRC Research Report 116, Dec. 15, 1993.
Jaworski, Java 1.1 Developer's Guide, Sams.net, 1997.
Wollrath et al., A Distributed Object Model for the Java™ System, USENIX Association, Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems, Jun. 17-21, 1996.
Harris et al., Proposal for a General Java Proxy Class for Distributed Systems and Other Uses, Netscape Communications Corp., Jun. 25, 1997.
Hamilton, Java and the Shift to Net-Centric Computing Computer, Aug. 1996, pp. 31-39.
Chung et al., A ‘Tiny’ Pascal Compiler: Part 1: The P-Code Interpreter, BYTE Publications, Inc., Sep. 1978.
Chung et al., A ‘Tiny’ Pascal Compiler: Part 2: The P-Compiler, BYTE Publications, Inc., Oct. 1978.
Thompson, Regular Expression Search Algorithm, Communications of the ACM, vol. II, No. 6, p. 149 et seq., Jun. 1968.
Mitchell et al., Mesa Language Manual, Xerox Corporation, 1978.
McDaniel, An Analysis of a Mesa Instruction Set, Xerox Corporation, May 1982.
Pier, A Retrospective on the Dorado, A High-Performance Personal Computer, Xerox Corporation, Aug. 1983.
Pier, A Retrospective on the Dorado, A High-Performance Personal Computer, IEEE Conference Proceedings, The 10th Annual international Symposium on Computer Architecture, 1983.
Krasner, The Smalltalk-80 Virtual Machine, BYTE Publications Inc., Aug. 1991, pp. 300-320.
Birrell, Operating Systems Review, ACM Press, vol. 27, No. 5, Dec. 1993, pp. 217-230.
Remote Method Invocation Specfication, Sun Microsystems, Inc., (1997), http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.1/docs/guide/rmi/spec/rmiTOC.doc.html.
“Eden Project Proposal,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Oct. 1980, Technical Report #80-10-01, cover and Foreword.
Almes et al., “Edmas: A Locally Disributed Mail System,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 83-07-21, Jul. 7, 1983, Abstract & pp. 1-17.
Almes et al., “Research in Integrated Distributed Computing,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Oct. 1979, pp. 1-42.
Almes et al., “The Eden System: A Technical Review,”Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 83-10-05, Oct. 1983, pp. 1-25.
Almes, “Integration and Distribution in the Eden System,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report, 83-01-02, Jan. 19, 1983, pp. 1-18 & Abstract.
Almes, “The Evolution of the Eden Invocation Mechanism,” Department of Computer Science, University of Washington, Technical Report 83-01-03, Jan. 19, 1983, pp. 1-14 & Abstract.
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.
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.
Burns et al., “An Analytical Study of Opportunistic Lease Renewal,” Distributed Computing Systems, 21st International Conference, pp. 146-153, Apr. 2000.
Ciancarini et al., “Coordinating Distributed Applets with Shade/Java,” Feb. 1998, pp. 130-138.
Delcambre et al., “Simulation of the Object Flow Model: A Conceptual Modeling Language for Object-Driven Applications,” 1993, pp. 216-225.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Koshizuka et al., “WIndow Real-Objects: A Distributed Shared Memory for Distributed Implementation of GUI Applications,”, Nov. 1993, pp. 237-247.
Krasner et al., “Smalltalk-80: Bits of History, Words of Advice,” 1983, Xerox Corporation, pp. 1-344.
Lavana et al., “Executable Workflows: A Paradigm for Collaborative Design on the Internet,” Jun. 1997, 6 pages.
Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Operating Systems Priniciples, 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).
Trehan et al., “Toolkit for Shared Hypermedia on a Distributed Object Oriented Architecture,”1993, pp. 1-8.
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.
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.
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
60/076048 Feb 1998 US