Methods, systems, and software for providing service integration framework

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to computer and Internet technology, and more particularly to technology for providing an consistent mechanism for systems (such as vendor systems) to access back-end functionality and data from services that deal with the public.

Typically, front-end business applications have been integrated with back-office host and network-based applications through a complex and non-standard set of APIs, adapters, and services. This may be thought of as a product-driven approach, since it has multiple products interfacing with the back office, each through its own set of integration, access, and security mechanisms.

There are a number of problems associated with this approach. For example, multiple database-specific access methods may be required. There may be several ways to do the same thing. There may be no organized way to provide audit information, and diagnostics may be distributed throughout the environment (e.g., in event logs and text files).

Regarding the back-end, there may be multiple vendor-supported middleware solutions in place, and there may be direct coupling of applications to an individual connectivity utility. Regarding security, there may be no single client authenticator allowing a user to interface with multiple applications, and there may be multiple entitlements systems. The security may be integrated with channel frameworks, and there may be inconsistent representation of processes and data.

Such approaches typically evolve through a history of developing redundant and diverse technologies as new infrastructure components are added for each new project. As a consequence, they have a number of drawbacks.

One problem, aside from the ones listed above, is that these various technologies often have tight coupling to individual channels and systems, making adaptation to change progressively difficult. Development and maintenance of each new solution becomes increasingly expensive and time-consuming.

Another problem with such systems is that new vendors encounter a steep learning curve when trying to interface with the various channels and systems. Also, end-to-end problem resolution between a vendor and a back-end office can be costly in time and resources.

It was with the foregoing understanding that the present invention was made.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

One object of the present invention is to provide a consistent mechanism for systems and applications (for example, vendor systems and applications) to access back-end functionality and data.

Another object is to provide a mechanism for insulating applications from the various particular ways in which a service may be implemented.

Another object is to abstract a back-end from vendor channels and to abstract middle-tier business applications from middle-tier infrastructure services.

Another object is to provide a channel-driven model that enables multiple products to interface with a back office in a consistent and scalable manner.

Another object is to provide a system wherein any application can be replaced without affecting back-end systems.

Another object is to provide a system that enables single sign-on for a plurality of services.

Another object is to provide a system that enables system-wide error reporting.

The above and other objects of the invention are realized by the embodiments described herein.

A preferred embodiment of the subject invention comprises a system for implementing computer network services and applications, comprising a front-end component comprising one or more applications; a back-end component comprising one or more services; and an abstraction layer component operable to communicate with the front-end and back-end components. Embodiments also comprise such systems wherein the abstraction layer component is operable to provide de-coupling of services provided by the back-end component; the abstraction layer component is operable to provide de-coupling of applications in the front-end component; the abstraction layer component is operable to provide single sign on for substantially all of the applications; the abstraction layer component is operable to provide built-in entitlements; the abstraction layer component is operable to provide system wide error reporting; the abstraction layer component comprises a business integration component; abstraction layer component comprises a vendor connectivity component; the abstraction layer component comprises a security component; the abstraction layer component comprises a utility component; the abstraction layer component comprises a back end connectivity component; the abstraction layer component uses application templates to provide standardization of business services; the abstraction layer component is operable to provide one or more standardized interfaces to back end services; the abstraction layer component is operable to provide standardization of back end services; the abstraction layer component is operable to provide one or more standardized interfaces to external consumers and providers; and/or the abstraction layer component comprises a single deployment platform.

In another preferred embodiment, the subject invention comprises a system for linking applications and services, comprising: a vendor connectivity component; a business integration component; a security component; a utility component; and a back end connectivity component. Embodiments also include such systems wherein: the vendor connectivity component is operable to standardize exposure of the applications to the services; the vendor connectivity component is operable to provide a consistent abstraction between a user interface and a middle tier; the vendor connectivity component is operable to use standardized headers to provide substantially seamless system management integration between a caller and the applications; the vendor connectivity component is operable to provide automatically generated service entry points; the vendor connectivity component is operable to provide service location and activation capabilities using one or more standard interfaces; the one or more standard interfaces comprise a Universal Discovery Description and Integration interface; the business integration component is operable to provide call context information; the business integration component is operable to provide identity context information; the business integration component is operable to provide application context information; the security component is operable to provide distributed security; the security component is operable to provide single sign on; the security component is operable to provide entitlement management; the security component is operable to provide identity management; the utility component is operable to enable the applications to access utilities using a standardized application program interface; the utility component is operable to provide centralized end-to-end system management with an ability to correlate information across a plurality of parameters; the utility component is operable to enable auditing at system boundaries to manage service level agreements and method level metering; the back end connectivity component is operable to enable the applications to access the services via one standardized application program interface; the back end connectivity component is operable to provide access to back end data sources without changing a back end system; and/or the back end connectivity component is operable to enable de-coupling of the applications from the services.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a general depiction of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 depicts prior art, product-driven systems.

FIG. 3 depicts a preferred channel-driven model.

FIG. 4 depicts prior art disadvantages.

FIG. 5 depicts evolution of the need for the present invention.

FIG. 6 illustrates use cases and data types supported by a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 7 depicts a preferred relationship between physical services, an abstraction layer, and framework interfaces.

FIG. 8 depicts a preferred utility framework.

FIG. 9 depicts a preferred back-end connectivity framework.

FIG. 10 depicts a preferred security framework.

FIG. 11 illustrates preferred internal and edge interfaces.

FIG. 12 depicts exemplary components of a preferred embodiment.

FIG. 13 depicts an exemplary implementation of a preferred embodiment.

FIG. 14 illustrates a logon use case for a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 15 illustrates logical flow for security aspects of a preferred embodiment.

FIG. 16 depicts a preferred Locate and Bind to Service scenario.

FIG. 17 depicts a preferred connectivity interface.

FIG. 18 depicts a preferred error, audit, and trace management system.

FIG. 19 depicts a preferred sequence diagram for a log system event.

FIG. 20 illustrates exemplary interactions among preferred session management components.

FIG. 21 depicts a preferred Add a User scenario.

FIG. 22 depicts a preferred Login (Authentication) scenario.

FIG. 23 depicts a preferred Authorization for Target Resource scenario.

FIG. 24 depicts a preferred Change Role scenario.

FIG. 25 depicts a preferred Logout scenario.

FIG. 26 illustrates preferred interaction between a Business Integration Framework (BIF) and the Integration Framework, from a BIF perspective.

FIG. 27 depicts a preferred structural model of the BIF using Back End Connectivity.

FIG. 28 depicts a preferred structural model of the BIF using the Utility Framework.

FIG. 29 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a Funds Transfer application performing a Get Valid Accounts transaction.

FIG. 30 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a Funds Transfer application performing a Get Bank Relationships transaction.

FIG. 31 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a Funds Transfer application performing a Get Funds Transfer Options and Perform Funds Transfer transaction.

FIG. 32 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a CAMU application performing a Validate and Lock Account transaction.

FIG. 33 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a Mutual Funds application performing a Get Profile transaction.

FIG. 34 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with an Online Statements application performing a Get Statement List transaction.

FIG. 35 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with an Online Statements application performing a Get Statements transaction.

FIG. 36 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a List of Scans application performing a Get List of Lists transaction.

FIG. 37 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a List of Scans application performing a Get Results transaction.

FIG. 38 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a List of Scans application performing a Save Results transaction.

FIG. 39 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a B2B Webservices application performing a Submit Trade transaction.

FIG. 40 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a PCOE application performing a GetCheckInfo call.

FIG. 41 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a PCOE application performing a ValidateCheckOrder call.

FIG. 42 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a PCOE application performing a SubmitCheckOrder call.

FIG. 43 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a Managed Assets application performing a Verify Account on Mainframe transaction.

FIG. 44 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a Managed Assets application performing an Add Account to Client Account Collection transaction.

FIG. 45 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a Benefits Online application performing multiple transactions.

FIG. 46 is a flowchart diagram illustrating steps performed by a dynamic multi-step application.

FIG. 47 is an object diagram of a preferred 3270 Integration Framework.

FIG. 48 is a use case diagram illustrating both single and multiple session scenarios.

FIG. 49 depicts components of a preferred messaging integration framework.

FIG. 50 is a sequence diagram for a preferred Locate and Bind to Service scenario.

FIG. 51 illustrates a preferred use case for a back end connectivity interface framework.

FIG. 52 illustrates a preferred Authorize and Create Command scenario.

FIG. 53 illustrates a preferred Execute Command scenario. FIG. 43 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a Managed Assets application performing a Verify Account on Mainframe transaction.

FIG. 54 illustrates a preferred messaging scenario, wherein the Integration Framework accepts messages from a data source and sends the messages to an external subscriber.

FIG. 55 illustrates a preferred subscription scenario. FIG. 43 depicts a preferred behavioral model associated with a Managed Assets application performing a Verify Account on Mainframe transaction.

FIG. 56 illustrates a preferred message delivery scenario.

FIG. 57 depicts a preferred RPC logical interface definition.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Referring first to FIGS. 1-15, preferred embodiments of the present invention will now be described. It will be appreciated that the invention is equally applicable without limitation for use in a number of other computer-related applications and systems.

A preferred embodiment of the present invention relates to an Integration Framework (IF), which provides a consistent mechanism for systems to access backend functionality and data. IF preferably abstracts a backend from vendor channels and middle-tier business applications from the middle-tier infrastructure services, as shown in FIG. 1.

The IF preferably provides a mechanism to insulate applications from the many ways in which a service may be implemented, based not on who implements the services (vendor, back office, or other party) or how the services get implemented, but rather on what the requirements for the services are. In contrast to the prior art, IF-based business applications are simpler to develop, deploy, and manage.

In one preferred embodiment, the invention comprises up to five major components that each provide substantially distinct functionality. Those components are: (1) a vendor connectivity framework; (2) a business integration framework; (3) a security framework; (4) a utility framework; and (5) a back-end connectivity framework. However, those skilled in the art will recognize that the IF is more general than the above five components and may compromise different combinations of those components or other components while still remaining within the scope of the invention.

A preferred vendor connectivity framework provides one or more of the following benefits: (a) standardizes the way in which business services are exposed; (b) provides a consistent abstraction between a user interface and a middle tier; (c) provides seamless system management integration between callers and applications through standardized headers; (d) service entry points are auto-generated and hence kept up-to-date with the latest in web services standards (e.g., Global XML Web Services Architecture (GXA)) without any development effort; (e) provides service location and activation capabilities through standard Universal Discovery Description and Integration (UDDI) interfaces (thereby de-coupling the implementation from the service provider); (f) provides business service grouping and categorization guidelines; and (g) provides documentation and help on business services exposed by a back office.

Universal Discovery Description and Integration is a specification for distributed Web-based information registries of Web Services. UDDI is also a publicly accessible set of implementations of the specification that allow businesses to register information about the Web Services they offer so that other businesses can find them.

A preferred business integration framework provides one or more of the following benefits: (a) common business application services; (b) provides call context (who called from which channel using what program and device); (c) provides identity context (end user and client information, preferably including identity, role and entitlements); and (d) provides application context information (for example, application level entitlements and state information) to applications.

A preferred security framework (see FIG. 10) provides distributed security, which: (a) supports Web application and Web services; (b) provides a single sign-on that utilizes a corporate domain for internal users and establishes a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) directory for external users; (c) provides policy based security that enables externalization of access control rules from application code and eliminates the impact on an application when access rules change; and (d) provides enhanced context services that coordinate with an integrated framework context while enhancing entitlement response headers for applications.

Preferably, the security framework also provides entitlement management, which: (a) establishes standards for role definition and role-based security, utilizing human resources (HR) data for classification of internal users and defining rules for classification of external users; and (b) provides a highly extensible model that allows integration and convergence of existing entitlement data and support for legacy entitlements.

Preferably, the security framework also provides identity management, which: (a) provides an implemented meta-directory infrastructure to manage identity data; and (b) provides enhanced identity data integrity based on using an authoritative source for data. Single sign on is also provided in a preferred embodiment.

A preferred utility framework (see FIG. 8) provides one or more of the following benefits: (a) enables applications to access utilities via a standardized application program interface (API); (b) provides centralized end-to-end system management with an ability to correlate information across a number of parameters (e.g., user, application, environment, caller, calling device, and time); (c) enables auditing at system boundaries to manage service level agreements (SLs) and method level metering; (d) provides flexible convergence opportunities—changes in utilities have limited impact on applications; (e) reliability, availability, scalability and maintainability of applications and utilities is simplified—hotspots can be readily identified and addressed; (f) reduces cost of software, infrastructure and support; and (g) provides a standardized, optimized, and simplified state management solution.

A preferred back-end connectivity framework (see FIG. 9) provides one or more of the following benefits: (a) applications access mainframe, distributed backend and third party data sources via the same standardized API; (b) provides consumption-based alternatives to applications (XML, bit-stream, MDAC, for example); (c) provides access to any backend data source without changing the backend system; (d) de-couples applications from backend systems; and (e) provides flexible convergence opportunities—changes in the backend have limited impact on applications or backend access services.

Benefits of a preferred embodiment include: (1) standardizes business applications by using application templates; (2) standardizes interfaces to the services that support business applications; (3) standardizes the services themselves; (4) standardizes interfaces to external vendors; and (5) converges infrastructure by using a singular deployment platform.

Other benefits include: (1) de-couples business applications from their supporting services, presentation tier, and other business applications; (2) streamlines the software release process; (3) reduces turnaround time on the software development life cycle (SDLC) as a whole; and (4) enhances operational manageability.

One goal of IF was to move from a product-driven model that consisted of multiple products interfacing with a back office through their own integration, access, and security mechanisms (depicted in FIG. 2) to a channel-driven model that enables multiple products to interface with a back office in a consistent and scalable manner (see FIG. 3).

In prior art systems, front-end business applications often are integrated with back-office host and network-based applications through a complex and non-standard set of APIs, adapters and services (see FIG. 4).

For example, as discussed above, multiple database-specific access methods may be required. There may be several ways to do the same thing. There may be no organized way to provide audit information, and diagnostics may be distributed throughout the environment (e.g., in event logs and text files). Regarding the back-end, there may be multiple vendor-supported middleware solutions in place, and there may be direct coupling of applications to an individual connectivity utility. Regarding security, there may be no single client authenticator allowing a user to interface with multiple applications, and there may be multiple entitlements systems. The security may be integrated with channel frameworks, and there may be inconsistent representation of processes and data.

FIG. 5 depicts evolution of the need for the present invention. At first there was a layered architecture comprising a number of components to deliver specified services. Then business demand created a need to de-couple the front and back ends of the layered enterprise architecture. This led to the development of the IF using web services, which accommodate ubiquitous access to business services.

Referring again to FIG. 1, it may be seen that the IF provides a “screen” behind which back end business applications and data can evolve over time. The IF's service oriented architecture (SOA) using web services provides a foundation for future elaborations of the enterprise architecture encompassing both the front and back end.

FIG. 6 depicts exemplary use cases and application types supported by a preferred embodiment.

FIG. 7 illustrates separation of framework interfaces and physical services provided by a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 11 illustrates exemplary internal and edge interfaces of a preferred embodiment. Preferred IF interfaces provide an abstraction layer that protects vendors from changes to the services and the back office. Implementing business application facing interfaces (using, for example, Microsoft technologies) is familiar to developers, and significantly reduces migration burdens and associated costs and risks to schedules. The interfaces preferably provide a well-defined, standardized model for UI vendors and IF vendors to integrate with a back office. Edge interfaces (e.g., utility, vendor connectivity, and security interfaces) expose services to be used by vendors. Other interfaces (e.g., business integration and backend connectivity interfaces) expose services for IF developers to integrate IF and a back office.

In an exemplary implementation (see FIG. 12), convergence is supported through development of a reference architecture for an IF.

FIG. 13 shows an exemplary implementation of a preferred embodiment in greater detail. A preferred utility framework provides centralized end-to-end system management, supports an audit at system boundaries to manage SLs and method level metering, and provides an optimized and simplified state management solution.

A preferred backend connectivity framework enables applications to access mainframe, distributed backend, and third party data sources via the same standardized API, and provides consumption based alternatives to applications (for example, XML, bit-stream, and Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC)).

A preferred security framework introduces a centralized security authorization solution; introduces centralized entitlement and role-based access control (RBAC) to enhance current access control lists (ACLs) and static maps and to enable multiple roles and role-switching; and enforces a unique identifier that is centrally implemented to link to identity maps.

A preferred vendor connectivity framework standardizes the way in which business services are exposed; provides a consistent abstraction between the UI and middle tier; and enables service entry points to be auto-generated and hence kept up-to-date with latest standards.

A preferred business integration framework provides call context, identity context, and application context information to the applications.

Referring again to FIG. 1, it may be seen that the IF standardizes services and infrastructure. For example, an API based thereon may be released and establish a standard set of services to be exposed to a UI vendor.

The IF enables convergence of services and infrastructure. It provides a singular deployment platform; provides standardized interfaces to all services; converges on a standard for security services (for example, Netegrity); and converges data access points through a single data access point.

The IF supports de-coupling. It enables de-coupling of business applications from their supporting services, de-coupling of business applications from business applications, and de-coupling of a presentation tier from business applications.

The IF enables migration. Standard application types and application templates may be developed to simplify migration and streamline the release process

The IF improves manageability. The IF utility services for error, log, and audit make it easier to locate problems and narrow down issues. Correlation is supported across services and applications

FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary use case: a logon use case. FIG. 14 is an interaction diagram showing steps of an exemplary logon process for a vendor seeking to logon to a particular service.

FIG. 15 is a flow diagram showing logical flow for an exemplary initial session setup.

FIGS. 16-57 and the following description illustrate specific details of exemplary embodiments of the present invention. These details are described solely for illustration and enablement, and are not intended to limit the scope of the claimed invention in any manner.

As discussed above, a preferred embodiment of the Integration Framework is focused on exposing a consistent set of interfaces to connect to back end functionality and data. It preferably consists of five major areas: Vendor Connectivity Framework, Security Framework, Business Integration Framework, Utility Framework, and Back End Connectivity Framework.

The Utility Framework preferably provides one or more of the following services to the overall Integration Framework:

(a) Specification Error, Audit, and Trace logging and querying interfaces for IF components. This provides standardization of error logging across IF.

(b) System Management functionality to acquire, store, classify, and distribute application and infrastructure events such as errors and warnings.

The Business Integration Framework (BIF) serves as an important part of a middle tier. A presentation tier, typically developed and hosted by outside vendors, communicates with backend systems through BIF. The input to BIF is fully authorized and partially authenticated by a security tier. BIF is responsible for enforcing business rules validation, transformation of data to backend (and conversely) to a common intermediate form that Back End Connectivity (BEC) can consume, and providing access for its applications to horizontal services such as logging, session management, etc. (these services themselves preferably are provided by the Utility Framework).

BIF defines a vendor's interface to business applications as well as service providers of the Business Integration Framework. The BIF is somewhat analogous to COM objects for business purposes. The COM interface does not change because new functionality is implemented to fulfill the COM request. In the same manner, the Business Integration Framework is capable of defining just one interface for all application types, such that no matter what transaction is executed the interface remains the same; only the data passed by parameters changes. As a rule, code changes (even “module changes”) should not be required when a new application (of already existing app-type) is added to a suite of applications.

Preferred Vendor Connectivity Framework Specification

Exemplary Assumptions:

(a) The vendor connectivity framework is the specification by which all core applications are located and executed.

(b) The vendor connectivity framework is a specification of all the interfaces for the core applications being used.

(c) The vendor connectivity framework is a specification for the context in which all core applications are activated. This includes the definition of the application request and response payload, as well as the definition of integration framework context outside the application request and response payload.

Scenario Analysis

A scenario relevant to Vendor Connectivity is Locate and Bind to Service. In this section the relevant sequence diagram is depicted for that scenario.

Locate and Bind to Service. Precondition: The Vendor has passed all security checks, is authorized to execute a service, and all required logging of the request has taken place. See FIG. 16.

Component Analysis

This section outlines the Logical Interface Definition provided by Vendor Connectivity. Note that the interface is defined at the logical level and hence describes the behavior to be offered, but not the specific physical messages. Guidelines on how the physical messages can be constructed are given in the Implementation Considerations section below.

Logical Interface Definition. As depicted in FIG. 17, the Vendor Connectivity Component realizes the Connectivity interface. Note that a component could support multiple interfaces.

The Connectivity interface preferably has the logical operations depicted in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

locateService
serviceName
List of matching
Based upon the name of the

service name
service a matching list of

appropriate service names

are determined

getServiceDescription
serviceName
Service
The WSDL for the service is

Descriptions
returned

(WSDL)

bindToService
serviceDescription
Pointer to service
The service is initiated and

to be executed
appropriate state is set up

Implementation Considerations

This section describes some of the considerations that preferably are taken into account while implementing the service.

Protocol. These are the minimum requirements for the Vendor Connectivity Namespace. (Security/Context ID at the IF protocol level).

Generic Header:

ServiceID (leads to Service Category, Sub Cat, Access Point, Contact Info)
Version
DateTime (up to millisecond)
ClientApp (Vendor app, test drivers etc.)
Client User Info (to be ratified with security)
Environment (Production, QA, PE, Development, Sandbox, UAT)
EndPoint (FQ service end point—physical desc)

Request:

Service Specific Params

Response:

Requested data:
Requested status:
Warnings:
Error details: Error ID, Error type (server, app., etc.)

Error Message, Source, Stack trace, Service call header

General Interface Syntax

Interface: <Verb><AppCategory>[Optional: SubCategory][Optional: Qualifier](inSchema, outSchema)

Generally speaking, in preferred embodiments, an interface represents an agreement between a consumer of a service or function and a provider of a service or function as to how the service or functionality should be invoked and used. This section describes the preferred general syntax of the service interfaces provided by the Integration Framework to vendors or internal consumers of services. The preferred syntax of the Integration Framework interfaces has a simple, predictable pattern, as follows:

Interface:

<Verb><AppCategory>[Optional: SubCategory][Optional: Qualifier](in, out)

Verb: The action to be taken by the Integration Framework on behalf of a vendor application. For example, Query, Insert, Update, Delete, Publish, Subscribe.

AppCategory: Represents a high-level category of business information, such as, Account, Research, Client, Order, MarketData.

SubCategory: Represent a secondary level of business information, such as Holdings, Balances, Activity. When combined with a Verb and higher level AppCategory, serves to describe in more detail the nature of the request. For example, QueryAccountHoldings. Subcategory is an optional descriptor.

Qualifier: Describes a tertiary level of business information. Serves to describe in more detail the nature of the action to be taken on behalf of vendor's application. Qualifier is an optional descriptor. For example, QueryAccountHoldingsMarketValue, where MarketValue represents a Qualifier.

In: A self-describing data schema containing a list of input parameter names, parameter data types (e.g., integer, string, binary, etc. . . . ), and parameter values. Similar to an xml document with an attached xsd.

Out: A self-describing data schema containing a list of output field names, data types (e.g., integer, string, binary, etc. . . . ), and output values. Similar to an xml document with an attached xsd.

Examples of Some Possible Interfaces:

QueryAccountHoldingsMarketValue(in, out)

QueryAccountActivity(in, out)

QueryAccountAssetAllocation(in, out)

UpdateClientInfoAddress(in, out)

InsertOrderEquityEntry(in, out)

List Connectivity Candidates are shown below in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Connectivity

Approach
Directory
Standard
Skills Required

SOAP
UDDI
IETF
Most major platforms

COM+
ADSI
Vendor Proprietary
Microsoft platform

specific

RMI
JNDI
Java Proprietary
Java platform specific

Websphere/MQ
JNDI
Java Proprietary
Java platform specific

JMS
JNDI
Java Proprietary
Java platform specific

Tibco
NA
Vendor Proprietary
Vendor specific

Service Provider Constraints

Functional: The directory service preferably supports application partitioning. This allows for deployments of new versions of software to a small production test audience, before releasing the version to the general population. The directory service preferably allows for an individual application to be shut off on schedule or on demand.

Non-Functional: Reliability, performance, and supportability.

Preferred Utility Framework Specification

Exemplary Assumptions

A session will be established by the security framework component. For a given request being processed within the IF, a session ID may be obtained by querying a security framework interface.

A session ID is an IF-wide unique identifier that will remain constant for the duration of a session. Security framework will provide an interface to validate the session ID.

Storage for the state and context managed by the session management will be accessed by using the interfaces provided by the back-end connectivity framework.

Access control for the state and context information managed by the session management will be expressed by using the interfaces supported by the security framework. The security framework will enforce the access control.

Exemplary Design Goals for Error, Audit, and Trace System and System Management.

An error is a common name for the status messages generated by an IF component to report its progress. These statuses may be informational, warnings, or errors.

An Audit message is generated at each entry and exit point of a component. Additional audit entries may be generated by a component to record significant progress in a component's activity.

Tracing provides information for monitoring a component for debugging purpose. Tracing is disabled during normal functioning of a component. It can be enabled or disabled administratively.

Single mechanism for producing audit events, reporting errors, and emitting trace events into system management facilities.

Highly efficient, has minimal impact to the performance of the application.

The viewer component provides a means to search and display events by type (Error, Trace, Audit) and/or customizable criteria (i.e. Account Number, Symbol, etc).

Distributed administration of trace levels.

Integrate errors from application components, network, and infrastructure into a common store to support information correlation.

Exemplary Design Goals for Session Management

Provide intra application state management.

Provide inter application context management.

Scenario Analysis

FIG. 18 depicts a preferred Error, Audit, and Trace Management system and its interaction with the system management facility. The scenario in FIG. 18 also depicts scenarios applicable to the session management system.

FIG. 19 depicts preferred interactions among components of an error, audit, and trace management system and system management facility components. FIG. 20 depicts preferred interactions among session management components.

Component Analysis

This section outlines a preferred Logical Interface Definition provided by a preferred Utility Framework. It should be noted that the interface is defined at the logical level and hence describes the preferred behavior to be offered, not the specific physical messages.

The following are the functional descriptions of the common information structures referred to in the interface definitions.

Common Information Structures:

Raw Message: A Raw Message is an error, audit, or trace message generated by the message source in its native format.

Message: A message is an error, audit, or trace message normalized by a message adapter. This standardization will decorate the message with information such as user ID, session ID, application ID, computer ID, and timestamp to make it usable for downstream processing.

Criterion: A criterion is a collection of attribute values present in a normalized message structure. A set of criteria may be used to filter, search or order messages.

Event Source Address: Event source address is an address to which an alert can be delivered. It may be an email address, a phone number, etc.

Rule: A rule is a Boolean expression of criteria followed by an action to be taken in case the expression was evaluated to be true.

Logical Interface Definition

TABLE 3

Error, Audit, Trace Interfaces

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

WriteError
Application ID
None
Gathers parameters

Error ID

and additional

Error Source

information such as

Error

session ID, time

Description

stamp, computer ID

Extra

and sends the error

Information

to the system

management

adapter.

WriteAuditInformation
ApplicationID
Success/
Gathers parameters

Activity ID
Failure
and additional

Audit Message
Status
information such as

session ID, time

stamp, computer ID

and sends the error

to the system

management

adapter.

WriteTrace
Application ID
None
Gathers parameters

Trace

and additional

Information

information such as

session ID, time

stamp, computer ID

and sends the error

to the system

management

adapter.

Adapter—An Adapter acquires raw errors from application components, infrastructure, and vendors and converts them to a standard format for use by a system management facility.

TABLE 4

System Management Interfaces

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

AddMessage
Raw Message
None
Acquires a raw

message from a

message source and

formats it into a

standard message

format for use by

system

management.

Rules Engine and Data Manager—. This component categorizes the messages and acts as a traffic cop between the messages and message stores.

TABLE 5

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

AddRule
Rule
Success/Failure
Adds message

Status
categorization and

correlation rules.

PrioritizeRules
Rule ID, Priority
Success/Failure
Sets the relative

rules priority

SetRuleProperties
Rule ID, Property
Success/Failure
Enable/Disable

Rule

TABLE 6

Alerting Mechanism

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

Subscribe
Criteria
Success/Failure
Creates a

Subscriber

subscription for an

Address

alert for a message

matching the given

criteria.

Unsubscribe
Criteria
Success/Failure
Removes a

Subscriber

subscription.

Address

ListSubscriptions
[Criteria]
List of
Lists subscriptions

Subscriptions
matching the

criteria.

TABLE 7

Viewing System Management Messages

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

Search
Criteria
Messages
Searches and

retrieves messages

matching the

criteria

Filter
Messages
Messages
Filters a set of

Criteria

messages based on

the criteria

Consolidate
Messages
Messages
Consolidates

Criteria

messages based on a

given criteria

TABLE 8

Session Management Interfaces

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

SetState
Session ID
Success/Failure
Saves the state

State ID

information

Value

GetState
SessionID
Value
Retrieves the state

State ID

information

Preferred Security Framework Specification

Exemplary Assumptions

The Security Framework is the specification by which all core applications are protected; and by which all requests to core applications are authenticated and authorized.

The Security Framework is a specification of all the interfaces for the distributed security services that wrap the core applications being used.

The Security Framework is the specification for all user data (defined separately from application data).

The Security Framework is the specification for Role-Based access control.

The Security Framework supports Role inheritance and delegation.

All calls made to the Security Framework will be logged based on defined corporate policies.

The Security Framework is the specification for issuance on session information.

Security Frame Work will adhere to the information security standards as defined by corporate policies.

Scenario Analysis

The scenarios that are relevant to a preferred Security Framework are listed below. The relevant sequence diagrams are depicted for the scenarios. For the use cases that follow the Login Use Case, the user is assumed to hold a valid authentication token.

Add User. Precondition: All approvals have been obtained. See FIG. 21.

Authorization for Target Resource. Precondition: User has already logged-in and has AuthToken. See FIG. 23.

Change Role. See FIG. 24.

Logout. See FIG. 25.

Component Analysis

This section outlines a preferred Logical Interface Definition provided by Security Framework. Note that the interface is defined at the logical level and hence describes the behavior to be offered, but not the specific physical messages. Guidelines on how the physical messages can be constructed are given in the Implementation Considerations section.

Logical Interface Definition: the Security Framework component preferably realizes the following interfaces (note that a component could support multiple interfaces): Provisioning; IdentityManagement; EntitlementManagement; and AccessControl.

The Provisioning Interface has the GetUserConfiguration( ) logical operation/method and the AccessControl interface has the rest of the following logical operations/methods:

TABLE 9

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

GetUserConfiguration
UniqueUserID
UserConfigurationData
Returns

configuration

details for the user

so that the Vendor

can provision the

user on their side.

Must be an

authenticated bind

to Security

Framework

Authenticate
Security
MLAuthToken
Authenticates the

Assertions

user to the realm

[Must include

based on the user's

UniqueUserId

successful

plus a trusted

authentication to

token that verifies

the Vendor

that user has been

security realm

authenticated on

the Vendor side]

GetRoleMap
UniqueUserId-
List of roles user
Returns list of

[Unique Id for
belongs to
roles that the User

user as

can play within the

recognized within

realm. Vendor

systems-<string>]

needs to provide

PlatformName

UI for user to

[Platform like

switch roles.

TGA, MLD, BO1

Must be an

etc so that the

authenticated bind

relevant roles for

to Security

that platform can

Framework

be returned]

SetRole
UniqueUserId-
Context Info for that
Returns associated

[Unique Id for
role
context/entitlement

user as

info for that role.

recognized within

Must be an

systems-<string>]

authenticated bind

RoleName

to Security

[Identifier for the

Framework

role that user

wants to play]

Logout
UniqueUserId-
Status message,
Resets

[Unique Id for
Revoke AuthToken.
authentication

user as

tokens and returns

recognized within

status message.

systems-<string>]

Must be an

authenticated bind

to Security

Framework

TABLE 10

Vendor Implemented Methods

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

AddUser
UniqueUserID
Acknowledgement
Accepts a request

for provisioning a

new user and

returns an

acknowledgement

SetContext
ContextInfo
Acknowledgement
Updates context

info for user for

current role

Implementation Considerations

This section describes some of the considerations that preferably are taken into account while implementing the service.

Protocol. General Interface Syntax:

Interface: <Verb><AppCategory>[Optional: Sub Category][Optional: Qualifier]
Verb: Add, Update, Delete, Get, Authenticate, Authorize
AppCategories: User, Role, Identity
SubCategory: Map
Qualifier

Example: AddUser, GetRoleMap, AuthenticateUser etc.

Service Provider Constraints.

Functional Constraints. The Security Framework preferably provides the following functionality and supports the following scenarios:

(A) The concept of multiple roles and allowing users to switch roles.

(B) The concept of identity mapping so a user can be identified across multiple systems.

(D) Third Parties should have access to accounts based on permissions set by the account owner.

(E) Delegation of access permissions should be supported.

(F) An access control mechanism is provided to check an individuals' entitlements to determine whether the permission to access a particular service has been turned on.

(G) Permissions will be granular to control access to a service, interface, or method.

(H) Access Control prevents access to actions in a service before that action is invoked (i.e., the front-end prevents a client from placing an Options trade if the service has not been turned on because the documentation has not been received).

(I) Centralized security management is provided to ensure consistency across all web services and with the Back-end.

(J) Single sign-on to all business services including online channels.

(K) Global logout and site specific logout capabilities.

(L) Interfaces for administration and reporting.

(M) Establish, validate, and cancel a session token associated with an authenticated session.

(N) Store and expose user entitlements and user profile information.

The Vendor is expected to provide an interface to support provisioning of new users. The interface should implement the method AddUser( . . . ). The vendor also is expected to provide an interface to support updating user context for users. The interface should implement the method SetContext( . . . ).

Preferred Business Integration Framework Specification

Exemplary Design Goals for Business Integration Framework

To provide clean application abstractions.

Disallow coupling between UI/Presentation zone and Fulfillment/Host zone.

Identify common services that all applications need (e.g., logging).

Determine application types and corresponding characteristics.

Define “Application model” which includes data model, design model, configuration model, deployment model, etc.

Exemplary Assumptions

BIF abstracts common behavior among application types, identified by the use cases.

BIF exposes common services like utility framework services, backend connectivity framework services, etc., to the business services.

BIF enables adding a new application of a known application type without any changes to the common abstractions.

BIF assumes that the Integration Framework provides for central access to session data and shared access to central data. The integrity of the session data must be protected at all times.

By the time a request comes to BIF, security has fully authenticated the request. In one embodiment, authorization is done as part of an SEC filter before it reaches the BIF.

Scenario Analysis at BIF and Peer Level

FIG. 26 depicts a preferred Business Integration Framework and its interaction with the Integration Framework from a BIF perspective.

FIG. 27 shows a preferred structural model of BIF usage of Back End Connectivity.

A preferred structural relationship of BIF usage of the Utility Framework components is depicted in FIG. 28.

Exemplary Sequence Diagrams: As detailed in Table 11 below, a number of current applications have been analyzed and documented as sequence diagrams.

TABLE 11

Application Type
Application
Transaction

Execute Synchronous Request
Funds Transfer
Get Valid Accounts

Execute Synchronous Request
Funds Transfer
Get Bank Relationships

Execute Synchronous Request
Funds Transfer
Get Funds Transfer Options

and Perform Funds Transfer

Dynamic Multi-Step
CAMU
Validate and Lock Account

Multi-Step Static
Mutual Funds
Get Profile

Profile

Execute Synchronous Request
Online Statements
Get Statement List

Bulk Data Transfer Request
Online Statements
Get Statement

Execute Synchronous Request
List of Scans
Get List of Lists

Execute Synchronous Request
List of Scans
Get Results

Execute Synchronous Request
List of Scans
Save Results

Execute Synchronous Request
B2B Webservices
Submit Trade

Execute Synchronous Request
Online Deal
Search for client

Management

Execute Synchronous Request
Online Deal
Select Client

Management

Execute Synchronous Request
Online Deal
Submit Indication of Interest

Management

Execute Synchronous Request
Rubicon
Subscribe

Asynchronous Notification
Rubicon
Set up alert

Request

Publish Vendor Notification
Rubicon
Alert Triggered

Execute Synchronous Request
PCOE
GetCheckInfo

Execute Synchronous Request
PCOE
ValidateCheckOrder

Execute Synchronous Request
PCOE
SubmitCheckOrder

Execute Synchronous Request
Managed Assets
Verify Acct On MainFrame

Execute Synchronous Request
Managed Assets
Add Account To Client Acct

Collection

Multistep
MLX Allocation
Block Allocation

Multistep/Execute Synchronous
Benefits Online
Multiple

Request

FIGS. 29-45 depict exemplary sequence diagrams for applications and transactions detailed in Table 11.

FIG. 29 depicts a behavioral model associated with a Funds Transfer application performing a Get Valid Accounts transaction.

FIG. 30 depicts a behavioral model associated with a Funds Transfer application performing a Get Bank Relationships transaction.

FIG. 31 depicts a behavioral model associated with a Funds Transfer application performing a Get Funds Transfer Options and Perform Funds Transfer transaction.

FIG. 32 depicts a behavioral model associated with a CAMU application performing a Validate and Lock Account transaction.

FIG. 33 depicts a behavioral model associated with a Mutual Funds Profile application performing a Get Profile transaction.

FIG. 34 depicts a behavioral model associated with an Online Statements application performing a Get Statement List transaction.

FIG. 35 depicts a behavioral model associated with an Online Statements application performing a Get Statement transaction.

FIG. 36 depicts a behavioral model associated with a List of Scans application performing a Get List of Lists transaction.

FIG. 37 depicts a behavioral model associated with a List of Scans application performing a Get Results transaction.

FIG. 38 depicts a behavioral model associated with a List of Scans application performing a Get Results transaction.

FIG. 39 depicts a behavioral model associated with a B2B Webservices application performing a Submit Trade transaction.

FIG. 40 depicts a behavioral model associated with a PCOE application performing a GetCheckInfo call.

FIG. 41 depicts a behavioral model associated with a PCOE application performing a ValidateCheckOrder call.

FIG. 42 depicts a behavioral model associated with PCOE application performing a SubmitCheckOrder call.

FIG. 43 depicts a behavioral model associated with a Managed Assets application performing a Verify Account on Mainframe transaction.

FIG. 44 depicts a behavioral model associated with a Managed Assets application performing an Add Account to Client Account Collection transaction.

FIG. 45 depicts a behavioral model associated with a Benefits Online application performing multiple transactions.

Component Analysis: Interfaces to BIF

Interfaces of a candidate application to BIF API:

TABLE 12

Use Case Types
Parameters

(App Types)
Comment
Operation Header
Payload

Multi Step (dynamic)
See FIG. 46 (flowchart
BIFML Header
BIFML

diagram illustrating a
consisting of
payload

dynamic multi-step
ContextHeader and
consisting of

application).
CallHeader (see
APPdata,

below for the XML
RuleData,

schema)
SessionData,

DownloadData.

ErrorData

Multi Step (static)
A table mapping App
BIFML Header
BIFML

calls to Validate,
consisting of
payload

Ancillary and Submit.
ContextHeader and
consisting of

CallHeader (see
APPdata,

below for the XML
RuleData,

schema)
SessionData,

DownloadData.

ErrorData

Single Step
Single step is a special

case of multi step with

only one step to

execute.

Bulk Transfer
Same as single step

with specification to

BEC to allow high-

bandwidth transport.

Execute Synchronous
Same as Single Step

Request

Asynchronous
Same as single step

Notification and
with a spec to BIF for

Asynchronous request
guaranteed delivery.

(originated by BIF client)

Component Analysis: BIF to BIF Service Provider:

TABLE 13

Operation
Operation Header
Payload

Execute
BIFML Header
BIFML payload consisting of

consisting of
APPdata, RuleData, SessionData,

ContextHeader
DownloadData. ErrorData

and CallHeader

<BIFML_Message>

<BIFML_Header/>

<BIFMLPayload/>

</BIFML_Message>

<BIFML_Header>

<BIFML_Context_Header/>

<BIFML_Call_HEADER/>

</BIFML_Header>

<BIFML_Message>

<BIFML_Header>

<BIFML_Context_Header>

<Product />

<Channel />

<Touchpoint />

<Operation />

<Mode />

<ExecutionContextID />

<RequestId />

<BIFParameterList>

<BIFParameter />

</BIFParameterList>

</BIFML_Context_Header>

<BIFML_Call_HEADER>

<SERVICEID />

<VERSION />

<DATETIME />

<CLIENTAPP />

<CLIENTUSERINFO />

<ENVIRONMENT />

<ENDPOINT />

</BIFML_Call_HEADER>

</BIFML_Header>

<BIFMLPayload>

<APPLICATION_DATA />

<SESSION_DATA />

<RULE_Data />

<DOWNLOAD_DATA />

<ERROR_DATA />

</BIFMLPayload>

</BIFML_Message>

Component Analysis: Preferred BIF to Backend Connectivity Interfaces

Interfaces to Backend Connectivity: Note that even though the below exemplary requirement on Back End Connectivity is expressed in an interface format, this description does not define interfaces that BEC must expose, it merely uses this notation as a vehicle to express the requirements.

There are primarily three main preferred operations to BEC: SendReceive, SendOnly, and ReceiveOnly. SendOnly works as the main vehicle for asynchronous communication to BEC; ReceiveOnly works as the main vehicle for asynchronous communication from BEC; and SendReceive is the communication vehicle for synchronous calls.

TABLE 14

Parameters

Global Header

Operation
Behavior
Info
Operation Header
Payload

Send
Sends the
Number Of
Operation Code
Send Receive

Received
information
Operations Global
Product Code
Payload

and block
Input Data Length
Channel Code
(Specific to

waits for the
Execution Context
Touch point Code
App)

result. The
Id Global Output
Operation Version

backend
Data Length Return
Number

executes and
Error Code
Operation Input Data

returns the

Length

answer.

Operation Output

Data Length

SendOnly
Sends the
Number Of
Operation Code
Send Payload

message and
Operations Global
Product Code
XML

gets ACK.
Input Data Length
Channel Code
(Specific to

Execution Context
Touch point Code
App)

Id Global Output
Operation Version

Data Length Return
Number Operation

Error Code
Input Data Length

Acknowledgement
Operation Output

Number Subscriber
Data Length

App Id Subscriber

App Group Id

Receive
Asynchronously
Number Of
Operation Code
Receive

Only
receives the
Operations Global
Product Code
Payload

message
Input Data Length
Channel Code
(specific to

Execution Context
Touch point Code
App)

Id
Operation Version

Global Output Data
Number

Length
Operation Input Data

Return Error Code
Length

Acknowledgement
Operation Output

Number
Data Length

Target Subscriber

App Id

Target Subscriber

App Group Id

SL for BEC: Key preferred SL requirements for BEC are the following:

(A) Adding a new Backend Call for an application does not result in changing BIF code.

(B) BEC supports Dynamic Transport Selection at Runtime. It also allows for failover to an alternate transport mechanism, in case the primary mechanism fails.

To support the above SL, the applications within BIF define the following two types of parametric data.

Transport Type Specification: This specifies the transport protocol to be used for each call initiated by the BIF Client, if that call includes usage of BEC.

TABLE 15

Example of Transport Type Document (for FTS application)

Transport Type

Calls
Description
(Example)

Call1
Get Valid Accounts
ECI

Call2
Get Bank Relationships
ECI

Call3
Funds Transfer Options
ECI

Transport Failover Specification: This specifies failover strategy for the transport protocols on a per call basis.

TABLE 16

Example of Transport Failover Document (for FTS application)

Primary

Trans-

port
Failover

Des-
(Ex-
Transport

Calls
cription
ample)
(Example)
Failover Condition

Call1
Get valid
ECI
MQ
if PrimaryTransport.Timeout =

Accounts

true

and

<PrimaryTransport>.Waittime>

<ReferenceData>.MaxTime

Call2
Get Bank
ECI
MQ
if

Rela-

<PrimaryTarget>.NumOfTries>

tionships

<ReferenceData>.NumOfTries

Call3
Funds
ECI
MQ
if

Transfer

<PrimaryTarget>.NumOfTries>

Options

<ReferenceData>.NumOfTries

Component Analysis Preferred: BIF to UTIL Interfaces

Note that even though the below requirement on the Utility Framework is expressed in an interface format, this description does not seek to define the interfaces that the Utility Framework should expose; it merely uses this notation as a vehicle to express the requirements.

TABLE 17

Interfaces to UF - InterApp Context Manager

Operation
Parameter
Behavior

Get
GroupId
The application retrieves the context

ApplicationId
using Get. The context data is

UserSessionId
returned in DataXML output

DataId
variable. UF Validates if the

DataXML
application is allowed to retrieve the

context within its Group.

Set
GroupId
The application Sets the context using

ApplicationId
Set. UF Validates if the application is

UserSessionId
allowed to set the context within it's

DataId
Group.

DataXML

TABLE 18

Interfaces to UF - IntraApp Context Manager

Operation
Parameter
Behavior

Get
ApplicationId
The application retrieves the context

UserSessionId
using Get. The context data is

DataId
returned in DataXML output

DataXML
variable.

Set
ApplicationId
The application Sets the context using

UserSessionId
Set.

DataId

DataXML

TABLE 19

Interfaces to UF - Error Logging

Operation
Parameter
Behavior

WriteErrorEvent
EventSource{ ApplicationId,
The application uses

WorkerId }
this operation to

CorrelationId
write an error

ErrorNumber
event to UF.

ErrorMessage

Status

WriteWarningEvent
EventSource{ ApplicationId,
The application uses

WorkerId }
this operation to

CorrelationId
write a warning

Message
event to UF.

Status

WriteInfoEvent
EventSource{ ApplicationId,
The application uses

WorkerId }
this operation to

CorrelationId
write an info

Message
event to UF.

Status

TABLE 20

Interfaces to UF - Tracing

Operation
Parameter
Behavior

WriteInvokeBeginEvent
EventSource{ ApplicationId,
The application uses this operation to

WorkerId }
write a trace event to UF. This trace

CorrelationId
is used at the start of a function body.

Input

Status

WriteInvokeEndEvent
EventSource{ ApplicationId,
The application uses this operation to

WorkerId }
write a warning event to UF. This

CorrelationId
trace event is used at the end of a

Output
function body.

RequestCriteria

Status

Implementation Considerations

This section describes some of the considerations that should be taken into account while implementing the service.

Exemplary Design Goals for Business Integration Framework:

(A) To provide clean application abstractions.

(B) Disallow coupling between UI/Presentation zone and Fulfillment/Host zone.

(D) Determine application types and corresponding characteristics.

(E) Define “Application model” that includes data model, design model, configuration model, deployment model, etc.

Preferred Backend Connectivity Framework Specification

Scope of Framework

The BEC Framework preferably has three primary components: 3270 Integration Framework, RPC Framework, and Messaging Framework.

Scope of 3270 Framework: The 3270 Framework is focused on exposing a consistent set of interfaces to connect to Back End functionality and data. It preferably comprises the following major components (see FIG. 47):

(1) Business Object (BO) layer that comprises a 3270 Connectivity Adapter and other IF Services (e.g., Security Svc and Utility Svc). The 3270 Adapter preferably interacts with the host and provides features like caching of transactions and terminal pooling with the help of a Utility Framework. A cross-reference table of transactions (maintained in this layer) and their corresponding relevant quirks is accessed by the Adapter to get transaction specific customization (e.g., Cache/Not to Cache, Formatted/Not Formatted**), a pool of sessions that the transaction can use, and a description of the transaction.

(2) A Data Object (DO) layer that executes the corresponding program in the host.

(3) The Rendering Object (RO) layer is the requester responsible for transforming the resultant data stream from the BEC IF into a presentation format and displaying it on the rendering device, or consuming the Datastream for ScreenScraping.

**Many applications adhere to a presentation format (i.e., the first line comprises a FUNCTION, SELECT and PWD field, followed by the Application content, and the last line is the Action field). The Formatted/un-formatted information usually is necessary to create the initial map for the mainframe.

The high-level object diagram depicted in FIG. 47 can be applied to the following two scenarios:

(1) Single Session Scenario: The requester “explicitly” passes the last character of the TermID (the 3270 Adapter will extract the seed from the context of the requester) as part of the payload to the BEC IF. Looking at the payload, the 3270 Adapter examines the requirement of a single session user and does not involve a Utility Framework for Terminal pooling. However, it does involve the Utility Framework for caching* the transaction (the resultant DataStream), the screen map and storing/retrieving contextual information like terminal token.

(2) Multiple Session Scenario: A user needs the 3270 Adapter to perform the task of deciding what terminal the request should be executed on (there is no explicit mention of the last character of the TermID in the payload). The 3270 Adapter maintains a set of used terminals in the session state (with the help of State Management of the Utility Framework). Caching* transactions is also part of this scenario.

*The purpose of caching transactions is to increase performance of 3270 access. It avoids round-trips to the mainframe for transactions that have already been executed. The cached copy has an expiration value that ensures that the user does not get stale information.

FIG. 48 illustrates both Single and Multiple Session preferred scenarios.

Scope of RPC Framework: The goal of a preferred Remote Procedure Call (RPC, or Programmatic Interface) Framework is to provide a uniform interface to all back end systems regardless of the underlying technology or protocol. The scope of technologies the interface must support includes, but is not limited to: host data and process; access to database systems such as SQL Server, Oracle, and Sybase; and third-party sources such as Standard & Poor's and New River. As with the other frameworks, the interface provided preferably is based on adapter techniques. Transactions, while supported by the underlying technologies, preferably are not addressed by this framework.

Scope of Messaging Framework: The Messaging Integration Framework preferably defines a consistent set of interfaces for message consumers and message producers to exchange messages. It allows guaranteed distribution of addressed messages with defined message type from message producers to message consumers. The Messaging Framework distributes two types of messages, namely Host Print and Host Alert, from a central site to local branch offices. It consists of six major components (see FIG. 49):

Adapter 4910 provides technical interfaces to various different data sources. It accepts messages from data sources and performs message/protocol transformation to generate a common message format as an input to Addressor.

Addressor 4920 is responsible for message addressing, enforcing business rules, and transforming the output messages into the format that can be consumed by message consumers.

Publisher 4930 is an interface object used by the Addressor to send “addressed” messages to the Pub/Sub Server for distribution.

Subscriber 4940 is an interface object used by message consumers to connect to the Integration Framework Pub/Sub Server and receive messages.

The Publish-and-Subscribe Messaging System 4950 distributes messages to consumers.

Adapter Controller 4960 is a daemon service used to initialize, manage, and monitor adapters.

The following exemplary assumptions may be made regarding the frameworks.

RPC Framework Assumptions:

(1) The total cost of ownership (TCO) of the framework must be considered in all decisions regarding its specification.

(2) The framework for back end connectivity should provide the minimum gap possible from existing back end applications. Existing back end applications should ideally be exposed to the framework with no changes to the application.

(3) The framework solution must meet the minimum requirements of all applications. Conversely, all applications must use the framework solution.

(4) Industry standard APIs and protocols will be used.

(i) When both a vended solution and an in-house solution exist and meet the minimum requirements, prefer the vended solution.

(ii) Transactions are considered out of scope for the framework. This means that the Back End Connectivity Framework will not support resource locking mechanisms and will not participate in two-phase commits. This, however, does not prevent back end applications from participating in transactions themselves.

(iii) Applications using the framework must maintain transaction volume levels and SL consistent with existing requirements.

(iv) This description describes a preferred embodiment. The description describes one set of interfaces for the framework. It is assumed that there may be many service implementers of the interface.

3270 Framework Exemplary Assumptions:

(1) The Authorization process will be taken care of by Security.

(2) The Authorization process will make use of a utility service to set credentials. The 3270 Connectivity Service will use the utility service to retrieve it.

(i) The TermID Token state can be set and retrieved with the help of utility services.

(ii) The 3270 Connectivity Service will use the utility service for Audit, Error Tracing, and Logging.

(iii) Application relevant state (e.g., Account#, Symbol, FC#, etc.) will be pre-filled into the response screen by the vendor.

(iv) Vendor takes care of transforming the Standardized Data returned by the BEC IF into a presentation format.

(v) Vendor will map the attributes of the resultant fields to the presentation appropriately (see Appendix A).

Messaging Framework Exemplary Assumptions:

(1) The Authorization/Authentication process will be taken care of by the Security framework.

(2) Consumers will be connected to a private network, so no message encryption is required.

(3) Branch-level subscription. If user is not at workstation, user does not get alerts.

(4) Business rules such as failure retry, inbox management, and courtesy copy for alert messages will be provided by the BIF.

(5) Message addressing interface will be provided by the Security Framework.

(6) Identity mapping will be done by the Security Framework.

(7) Error logging, Tracing, and Auditing will be provided by the Utility Framework.

(8) Local alerts, price limits alerts, and the availability of email alerts will be provided by vendors.

Scenario Analysis

3270 Scenario Analysis. A scenario relevant to the Vendor Connectivity is Locate and Bind to Service. The relevant sequence diagram for that scenario is depicted in FIG. 50.

Locate and Bind to Service: Precondition: User has been provisioned and logged in and has an authorization token from Security.

Once authorized, the 3270 Adapter picks up the credentials from the Envelope/Call Context of the request and executes the transaction.

RPC Scenario Analysis. The analysis begins with defining the use cases. The use case for the back end connectivity programmatic interface framework is depicted in FIG. 51. There are two actors important to the framework: the application requiring back end services, and the back end system providing the services. The remaining actors provide support for security, service discovery, and logging.

There are two distinct scenarios that can be developed for back end connectivity RPC. The first is authorizing the activity and finding the provider of the service. The second is execution of the service. In this section those scenarios are discussed and relevant sequence diagrams are described.

As mentioned in the assumptions, in this embodiment the back end connectivity framework does not support transactional processing. However, each of these scenarios may itself represent a transaction.

Authorize and Create Command. This scenario represents the activities typical to an application requesting a command resource. The request contains the name of the requested resource, the user context, and the desired service level (SL). The SL can be used when more than one service is available for the requested resource.

This scenario can be viewed as a novel adaptation of the classic Class Factory Pattern. In that pattern, rather than applications creating instances of a particular implementation, the factory object creates instances on behalf of the caller. In this scenario, the Command Manager acts as a factory taking requests for command instances. In order to do that the Command Manager must first ask the Security Framework whether the command is authorized for the current user context. After authorization, the Command Manager uses the Service Locator to find implementations of the command. The Command Manager creates an instance of the cCommand, loading the code if required. The command instance is returned to the caller. See FIG. 52.

Execute Command. This scenario represents execution of a program or process on behalf of the calling program. This scenario is another adaptation of a classic software pattern, the Adapter Pattern. The Command object returned from the GetCommand scenario is an adapter (“wrapper”) for an existing technology service.

The Command object gives a standard interface to the application regardless of the underlying back end technology. The command manages the transformation from one data format to another. Additionally, the command object manages the connection to the back end and associated protocols. See FIG. 53.

Messaging Scenario Analysis. The messaging scenario that is relevant to the Back End Connectivity—Messaging framework is to get messages from internal/external data sources and deliver the messages to consumers. See FIG. 54. The Messaging framework preferably provides an adapter for each type of data source. The adapter gets messages asynchronously from the data source and performs message/protocol transformation. In this section the relevant sequence diagram is depicted for each scenario.

Subscription: See FIG. 55.

Message Delivery: See FIG. 56.

Component Analysis

This section outlines a preferred Logical Interface Definition provided by Back End Connectivity. Note that the interface is defined at the logical level and hence describes the behavior to be offered, but not the specific physical messages.

3270 Component Analysis. This section outlines the Logical Interface Definition provided by the BEC IF. BEC IF forwards the call to the 3270 Adapter. Note that the interface is defined at the logical level and hence describes the behavior to be offered, but not the specific physical messages. Guidelines on how the physical messages can be constructed are given in the Implementation Considerations section below.

3270 Logical Interface Definition. The BEC 3270 IF interface has the following preferred logical operations:

TABLE 21

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

Execute
Collection of Params
Standardized data
Executes the

containing “Initiate”,
structure
transaction on the

cSession = NULL
containing output
mainframe (if

sCacheID, sTrans,
of the transaction
the cross

sArgs,

reference table

sFuncKey,

specifies this

sReserved

transaction as cached

and the cached copy

is not available).

Execute
Collection of Params

Executes the

containing “Continue”,

transaction on the

cSession = NULL

mainframe (even if

sCacheID, sTrans,

the cached copy of

sResponse,

this transaction is

sFuncKey,

available).

sCursorPos,

sReserved

RPC Component Analysis. RPC Logical Interface Definition: See FIG. 57.

TABLE 22

CommandManager

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

GetCommand
Command
Command
Checks with

Identifier
interface
Security Framework

User Context

to ensure that

Command SL

resource is available

to user context. If

available, locate

service and code if

required. If

multiple services

exist, use SL to

determine unique

service instance.

TABLE 23

Command

Attribute
Description

CommandType
The type of command. Values could be: stored

procedure, dynamic SQL, XML request document.

CommandText
The text that represents the command. This could be

a command name or call string.

TABLE 24

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

Execute
ParameterCollection
ExecuteResults
Executes the

command on behalf

of the application.

The results are

returned as Execute

Results object.

Transform
None
None
Transforms the data

for the command

into a format

understood by the

underlying

technology.

GetParameters
None
Parameter
Returns a collection

Collection
of parameters

appropriate for the

command. Clients

set values for the

parameters and pas

as input to Execute

method.

TABLE 25

Connection

Attribute
Description

ConnectionType
The type of the connection, i.e.: ODBC, OLEDB,

TGADP, Web Service.

ConnectionString
Information about the connection required to

connect

Timeout
The length of time to wait for a request before

timing out the operation.

TABLE 26

Parameter

Attribute
Description

Name
The name of the parameter

Value
The value assigned to the parameter

Type
The data type for the parameter.

Direction
The direction of the parameter. Valid values for

direction are In, InOut, and Out.

ParameterCollection is a class that contains a collection of Parameter instances.

Messaging Component Analysis. This section outlines the Logical Interface Definition provided by the Messaging framework. Note that the interface is defined at the logical level and hence describes the behavior to be offered, but not the specific physical messages.

Messaging Logical Interface Definition: The Messaging Connectivity Component realizes Adapter, Subscriber, and Publisher interfaces. The Subscriber interface object has the following logical operations:

TABLE 27

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

Subscribe ( )
Topic
SUCCESS/
Accept messages

ERROR
with defined

message type

from the IF.

UnSubscribe ( )
Topic
SUCCESS/
No longer want to

ERROR
receive

messages from

the Integration

Framework.

CreateConnection( )
Username,
SUCCESS/
Check for user

Password,
ERROR
entitlement

IFMessageServiceID,

Establish

SubscriberID

communication

channel with the IF

Pub/Sub System

The Publisher interface object has the following logical operations:

TABLE 28

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

CreateConnection ( )
IFMessageServiceID,
SUCCESS/
Establish

Topic
ERROR
communication

channel with IF -

Pub/Sub System

Publish ( )
Message,
NIL
Sends messages

DeliveryMode,

to the Integration

Priority,

Framework

Timeout

The Adapter interface object has the following logical operations:

TABLE 29

Operation
Parameters
Return
Behavior

GetMessage( )
Message
SUCCESS/ERROR
Get messages from

data source

Perform protocol

transformation

Transform message

into a common

message format

understood by the

underlying

technology

Naming Conventions. Commands provided in the Back End Connectivity Framework preferably adhere to standards for naming and structure. Standards provide for easier readability, development, and support of the interfaces.

Command Name:

Interface: <Verb><AppCategory>[Optional: SubCategory][Optional: Qualifier]

Query, Create, Update, Delete, Execute

AppCategories: Account, Research, Client, Order

SubCategory

Qualifier

Example: QueryAccount, QueryAccountBalance, ExecuteOrder, DeleteAccountHolding, CreateResearchOpinion.

Command Response: <CommandName>Response

Example: QueryAccountResponse

Command Return Data: <CommandName>Results

Example: QueryAccountResults

Implementation Considerations

This section describes some of the considerations that preferably are taken into account while implementing services for back end connectivity.

3270 Protocol Considerations. The Datastream that is expected out of the 3270 Connectivity Service is a standardized Data Stream representing 3270.

BEC IF Adapter Namespace. The 3270 Adapter Namespace exposes two methods via Execute (method of BEC IF), viz., “Initiate” and “Continue.” The method is either “Initiate” for Initial request or “Continue” for Continuation of User Response. This is recommended for the following reasons:

(1) If there is a cached copy of the transaction, it would be submitted as a response to this method “only” if it is an “Initial” request; otherwise, the request is routed to the Mainframe for execution.

(2) If this is an Initial request, a 3270 Screen Buffer will be constructed (out of Transaction ID and the sArgs (see below)) and submitted to the mainframe.

“Initiate” is used for Initiation of Mainframe transactions. Following is the signature of the method: Execute(“Initiate”, cSession=NULL, sCacheID, sTrans, sArgs, sFuncKey, sReserved)

cSession: is the last character of the TermID (used for executing this transaction). If this value is NULL, the adapter allocates an available session for use.

sCacheID: is the key to cached transactions. Transaction ID cannot serve as an identifier since a user can have multiple copies of the same transaction with different states. (RCE is one transaction that can have as many as 400 branches. The value of Select fields denotes the branch that the user wants to follow.)

sTrans: is the transaction to execute.

sArgs: is a string that the Adapter concatenates with the sTrans (see above) and executed (much like a command line execution). For example, if the purpose was to execute “RCE 23a897655/1/2/3” in a “Clear” screen, the sTrans would have “RCE” and sArgs would have “23a89765/1/2/3.”

sFuncKey: Function Keys that were pressed (PF1 . . . PF12 and the Advanced PA keys).

sReserved: Reserved Data.

Response: The response is in a Standardized Data format. The data will contain all the fields that make up the resultant screen (including all relevant attributes like position, style, etc.), and choices. The Screen Buffer will be cached in Utility and will be accessed for future use.

(If Unsuccessful)

- Requested status and/or Warnings
- Error details
- Error ID, Error type (server, app . . . etc) Error Message.
- OR

(If Successful)

- Standardized Format representing 3270 Data Stream
- 3270 Map

“Continue” is used for Continuation of Response. Following is the preferred signature of the method: Execute(“Continue”, sSession, sCacheID, sTrans, sResponse, sFuncKey, sCursorPos, sReserved)

cSession: is the last character of the Termid (used for executing this transaction). If this value is NULL, the adapter allocates an available session for use.

sCacheID: is the key to cached transactions. The response to this request will be saved using this identifier.

sTrans: Transaction to execute.

sResponse: Name-Value pairs of the user response in the editable fields. Each edit field will have a name that starts with the letter ‘E’ (for edit field) followed by row number, a “_” and a column number. For example, “E1_—10” denotes the edit field on first row, 10^thcolumn. A semicolon will delimit the name-value pairs.

sFuncKey: Function Keys that were pressed (PF1 . . . PF12 and the Advanced PA keys).

sCursorPos: Edit field that has the cursor position. The name of the edit field conforms to the same format that is stated in sResponse.

sReserved: Reserved Data.

(If Unsuccessful)

- Requested status and/or Warnings
- Error details
- Error ID, Error type (server, app, etc.) Error Message.
- OR

(If Successful)

- Standardized Format representing 3270 Data Stream
- 3270 Map

RPC Protocol Considerations: The back end connection framework preferably does not restrict the wire protocol used for connectivity. The framework requires that standard protocols such as SOAP be used. Applications using the framework do not decide the protocol and are not aware of the implementation details of the protocol.

Messaging Protocol Considerations: Messaging Connectivity Namespace. This is a preferred minimum requirement for the messaging framework namespace.

Exemplary Common Message Header Format:

VERSION = 0101

MCAT = MESSAGE CATEGORY, A = HOST ALERT,

L = LOCAL ALERT, P = HOST PRINT

MTYPE = CURRENT TGA MESSAGE TYPES, I.E., AOI, FYI, ETC.

MSRC = ORIGINATION SYSTEM, I.E. FYI, ORDER ENTRY, ETC.

MLOC_WC = ORIGINATION SYSTEM LOCATION/WIRE CALL,

IF ANY (GENERATED EXTERNAL TO MAINFRAME HOST).

MUSER = ORIGINATION SYSTEM USER ID, IF ANY.

MID = MESSAGE ID (UNIQUE)

TIMESTAMP = TIMESTAMP (MMDDYYYYHHMMSSSS) WHEN

THIS MESSAGE ENTERED

DETAIL = ONE LINE MESSAGE TITLE OR DESCRIPTION

ADDRESSING.MODE = ADDRESSING MODE, I = INDIVIDUAL,

X = BROADCAST TO ALL AT WC

ADDRESSING.COUNT = COUNT OF RECIPIENTS

ADDRESSING.LOC_WC = WIRE CALL WHERE MESSAGE

IS TO GO

ADDRESSING.TYPE = ADDRESSING TYPE, N = NTID,

B = BOSS ID, V = VENDOR SPECIFIED.

ADDRESSING.RECIPIENT.USER 1 TO N USER ID'S

MSG.CAT = CURRENT TGA MESSAGE CATEGORIES, I.E.,

MG - MANAGEMENT, ETC.

MSG.DETAIL = DETAIL FOR MESSAGE CAT, SUCH AS ‘FD’ FOR

FUNDS DUE

MSG.DATETIME = MESSAGE DATE/TIME

MMDDYYYYHHMMSSSS PROVIDED BY INPUT SYSTEM.

MSG.LEN = NUMBER OF CHARACTERS IN MESSAGE

MSG.LINES = NUMBER OF LINES IN MESSAGE

MSG.DATA.NL = 1 TO ADMS_OUT.MSG.LINES OF TEXT DATA

RESENT = 0 TO N TIMES MESSAGE HAS BEEN RESENT TO

DELIVERY SYSTEM

Delivery Mode: Asynchronous request-reply, Persistent.

Topic: branch location code

Message Payload: Message output header+Message Text

Message output header: RTRV/POSS DUP

- DEST OSN [SO ISN] D/T

APPENDIX A
3270 Field Attributes

TABLE 30

Line
Field Description
Application Screen View

1
Protected unmarked fields
Ignored for View.

prior to first enterable field or

first FSET protected field.

1
First unprotected field unless
Taken to be Function field. Not mapped

FSET protected field
directly to view, but used for transmitting

encountered first.
Transaction ID.

1
FSET protected field prior to
Taken to be Function field. Response data

first unprotected field.
considered invalid if contents of this field do

not match the Transaction ID attribute of the

Page.

1
First FSET protected field
Taken to be Hidden function field. If any

between Function field and
transmission is made with the function field of

next enterable field.
the Host data map blank, this field must be

present and nonblank.

1
Next unprotected field, or
Taken to be Select field. If field is FSET

second FSET field, after
protected, the screen will have to be cleared if

Function Field.
WS User alters the Select field on the View.

1
Next unprotected or FSET
Taken to be the Password field. If field is

field after the Select field.
FSET protected, the screen will have to be

cleared if the WS User alters the Password field

on the View.

2-19
Any protected, displayable
Presented as text in client area of Application

field.
Screen View, in location expected on a 3270

display. Color of text per table below.

2-19
Any protected, hidden field.
Ignored for View. If FSET, WHAM will

retransmit to Host application.

2-19
Any unprotected, single-line
Presented as an edit control on Application

displayable field.
Screen View, in location expected on a 3270

display. Color of text per table below.

2-19
Any unprotected, single-line
Presented as a password-style edit control on

nondisplayable field.
Application Screen View, in location expected

on a 3270 display. Displayed masking

character configurable in Registry.

2-19
Any unprotected, multi-line
Presented as a single editable object that wraps

displayable field
from the end of one line to the beginning of the

next in the way expected on a 3270 display.

However, if field extends beyond line 19, it is

truncated at the end of line 19. Color of text

per table below.

2-19
Any unprotected, multi-line
Presented as a single-line password-style edit

nondisplayable field.
control on Application Screen View, capable of

horizontal scrolling to hold the number of

characters required by the 3270 field. If the

field contains at least one full line, it is

displayed on the first such line, as a field of 80

characters. If the field does not contain a full

line (thus occupying at most two lines), it is

displayed on the line on which it has the most

enterable characters. If it has the same number

of characters on each of the two lines, the field

is displayed on the second line, where is starts

at the beginning of the line. Displayed masking

character configurable in Registry.

20-24
Text of a given line, ignoring
If non-blank, presented as one line of a multi-

field boundaries.
line rich text edit field (with user editing

disabled)., with text colors established

separately for each field originally in the 3270

map, according to the table below. Blank or

hidden fields are ignored in the View.

20-24
Any unprotected fields.
If non-blank, contents are presented as text per

rule above, but WS User cannot alter contents.

Blank or hidden fields are ignored in the View.

The colors of the text characters are determined from Table 31 below.

TABLE 31

3270 Display
3270 Extended
Hex
Color in

Attribute
Attribute
Code
Application View

Hidden (a/k/a Non-
Any

Ignored, because text is

display) and protected.

not displayed.

Hidden (a/k/a Non-
None or Color
42F0
Black (color of displayed

display) and
Neutral

masking character).

unprotected.

Normal, non-
None or Color
42F0
Black (0, 0, 0)

detectable
Neutral

Normal, selector pen
None or Color
42F0
Configurable,

detectable
Neutral

default Purple

(199, 21, 124)

Intensified
None or Color
42F0
Configurable, default

Neutral

Red (255, 0, 0)

Any but Hidden
Color Blue
42F1
Blue (0, 0, 255)

protected.

Any but Hidden
Color Red
42F2
Red (255, 0, 0)

protected

Any but Hidden
Color Pink
42F3
Magenta (192, 0, 192)

protected

Any but Hidden
Color Green
42F4
Green (0, 255, 0)

protected

Any but Hidden
Color
42F5
Cyan (0, 192, 192)

protected
Turquoise

Any but Hidden
Color Yellow
42F6
Yellow (192, 192, 0)

protected

Any but Hidden
Color Neutral
42F7
Configurable, matches

protected

background

color, default

(208, 208, 208)

Any but Hidden
Color Black
42F8
Black (0, 0, 0)

protected

Any but Hidden
Color Deep
42F9
Deep Blue (0, 0, 96)

protected
Blue

Any but Hidden
Color Orange
42FA
Orange (255, 192, 0)

protected

Any but Hidden
Color Purple
42FB
Purple (199, 21, 124)

protected

Any but Hidden
Color Pale
42FC
Pale Green (128, 255, 128)

protected
Green

Any but Hidden
Color Pale
42FD
Pale Turquoise

protected
Turquoise

(128, 255, 255)

Any but Hidden
Color Grey
42FE
Grey (128, 128, 128)

protected

Any but Hidden
Color White
42FF
White (255, 255, 255)

protected

Any but Hidden
Extended
41F1
Ignored

protected
Highlight

Blink

Although the present invention is particularly beneficial for use with business-related networks, it should be understood that the invention is not limited in that regard. Accordingly, the present invention may also be used with any type of software-based system that has front-end applications interacting with back-end services.

Number	Name	Date	Kind
20030004853	Ram et al.	Jan 2003	A1
20030212761	Meredith et al.	Nov 2003	A1
20040221066	Ganfield et al.	Nov 2004	A1
20050055700	Singler et al.	Mar 2005	A1
20050138113	Brendle et al.	Jun 2005	A1
20050144226	Purewal	Jun 2005	A1
20070199056	Bhatia et al.	Aug 2007	A1

	Number	Date	Country
Parent	10799227	Mar 2004	US
Child	12502763		US

Methods, systems, and software for providing service integration framework

Information

Patent Number

Date Filed

Date Issued

Inventors

Original Assignees

Examiners

Agents

CPC

US Classifications

Field of Search

US

International Classifications

Term Extension

Abstract

Description

Claims

RELATED APPLICATIONS

US Referenced Citations (7)

Related Publications (1)

Continuations (1)