In modern software development, applications are often developed in such a fashion as to allow additional features and functionality to be added to the completed application. Applications that are developed in this fashion are said to be extensible or follow an extensibility model. One common method that is used to extend an application is to create functionality in a component called an add-in. A second common method that is used to extend an application is through the use of a scripting engine and scripts. An application that provides for extensibility is referred to as a host because that application provides the environment in which the extensions operate.
An add-in is a set of computer instructions compiled into at least one binary file. The add-in relies on the pre-defined knowledge of the host. Extending an application using a script does not require pre-defined knowledge of the host, but does require that the host implement an environment in which the script is to be executed. The reason the host must be aware of the script engine is because scripts, in general, are not compiled. Further, for a host to allow extensibility via scripts, the script engine must be defined before the application is completed so that it can be included as part of the available options. The host must also be aware of when to initiate the script engine and how and when to find the scripts to execute on it. This has the result of locking programmers into only those scripting languages that are supported for that application, if any are even supported at all.
Various technologies and techniques are disclosed for generating add-in bridges that allow hosts to be extended using a dynamic language. Input is received from a user to generate an add-in bridge. The system programmatically determines one or more static requirements that an add-in is required to implement in order to integrate with a particular host. The system programmatically generates the add-in bridge to conform to the one or more requirements of the particular host and to operate like a compiled add-in while actually calling one or more script files that are executed by at least one scripting engine to implement a desired functionality. The one or more script files are written in a dynamic language.
The add-in bridge is programmatically generated by first generating a component for the add-in that contains at least one class to conform to the requirements of the host. A constructor is then generated for the class. For each method the add-in is required to implement, a respective method is generated in the class that provides a stub implementation for the respective method but that calls one or more dynamic-language script files that are executed by at least one scripting engine to perform an actual implementation of a desired functionality. In one implementation, hosts that do not support dynamic languages can be extended using dynamic languages with the add-in bridge.
This Summary was provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.
For the purposes of promoting an understanding of the principles of the invention, reference will now be made to the embodiments illustrated in the drawings and specific language will be used to describe the same. It will nevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope is thereby intended. Any alterations and further modifications in the described embodiments, and any further applications of the principles as described herein are contemplated as would normally occur to one skilled in the art.
The system may be described in the general context as an application that enables applications to be extended using add-ins, but the system also serves other purposes in addition to these. In one implementation, one or more of the techniques described herein can be implemented as features within a software development program such as MICROSOFT® VISUAL STUDIO® or from any other type of program or service that allows for the creation of add-in components. In one implementation, a system is provided that allows a host that has a static set of requirements that must be implemented by add-ins to be extended using script files. The system enables this extended add-in functionality by generating an add-in bridge that contains a stub for the requirements of the host, but calls the script engine and script files to do the actual work. The bridge can be generated dynamically at runtime, or statically by the add-in/script developer. This allows developers to write add-ins in one or more dynamic script languages of choice to extend a host with functionality that otherwise has a static set of requirements that are typically implemented in a compiled add-in.
As shown in
Additionally, device 100 may also have additional features/functionality. For example, device 100 may also include additional storage (removable and/or non-removable) including, but not limited to, magnetic or optical disks or tape. Such additional storage is illustrated in
Computing device 100 includes one or more communication connections 114 that allow computing device 100 to communicate with other computers/applications 115. Device 100 may also have input device(s) 112 such as keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, etc. Output device(s) 111 such as a display, speakers, printer, etc. may also be included. These devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length here. In one implementation, computing device 100 includes add-in bridge generator application 200. Add-in bridge generator application 200 will be described in further detail in
Turning now to
Add-in bridge generator application 200 includes program logic 204, which is responsible for carrying out some or all of the techniques described herein. Program logic 204 includes logic for receiving input from a user to generate an add-in bridge 206; logic for programmatically determining one or more requirements that an add-in is required to implement in order to integrate with a particular host, the one or more requirements being a static set of requirements that are part of a static extensibility model 208; logic for programmatically generating the add-in bridge to conform to the one or more requirements of the particular host and to operate like a compiled add-in while actually calling script file(s) that are executed by at least one scripting engine to implement a desired functionality, the script file(s) being written in a dynamic language 210; logic for enabling the generation of the add-in bridge to be created by generating a component (assembly, executable file, component, in-memory module, etc.) for the add-in that contains a class to conform to the host requirements, generating a constructor (e.g. that obtains an interface to control script engine, starts script engine, loads script files, etc.), and for each method the add-in must implement, generating a respective method in the class that implements the respective method but calls the script files that are executed by the scripting engine 212; and other logic for operating the application 220. In one implementation, program logic 204 is operable to be called programmatically from another program, such as using a single call to a procedure in program logic 204.
Turning now to
Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims. All equivalents, changes, and modifications that come within the spirit of the implementations as described herein and/or by the following claims are desired to be protected.
For example, a person of ordinary skill in the computer software art will recognize that the client and/or server arrangements, user interface screen content, and/or data layouts as described in the examples discussed herein could be organized differently on one or more computers to include fewer or additional options or features than as portrayed in the examples.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5146593 | Brandle et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5210876 | Uchida | May 1993 | A |
5469574 | Chang et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5675804 | Sidik et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5732270 | Foody et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5974257 | Austin | Oct 1999 | A |
6096094 | Kay et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6275868 | Fraley et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6381737 | Click et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6609158 | Nevarez et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6779172 | Weerawarana et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6931455 | Glass | Aug 2005 | B1 |
7020867 | Underseth et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7073130 | Novak et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7117503 | Camara et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7129961 | Samra | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7131110 | Brewin | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7181745 | Foti | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7546606 | Upton | Jun 2009 | B2 |
20020041289 | Hatch et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020092000 | Srinivasan et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020129054 | Ferguson et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133811 | Duftler et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030149801 | Kushnirskiy | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20050022161 | Burger et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050044526 | Kooy | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050283446 | Dettinger et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060129982 | Doyle | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20080163167 | Buzinov et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO0139046 | May 2001 | WO |
WO0209346 | Jan 2002 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Mike Grogan, “Scripting for the Java Platform Final Draft Specification version 1.0”, Jul. 2006, Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
Shalloway et al. “Design Pattern Explained: A New Perspective on Object-Oriented Design”, 2004, Addison-Wesley Profession, section “Abstract Classes Vs. Interfaces”. |
O'Conner, “Scripting for the Java Platform”, Jul. 2006, Sun. |
Andrew Clinick, “Script Happens .NET”, Jun. 2001, Microsoft Corporation. |
David Beazley, “SWIG: An Easy to Use Tool for Integrating Scripting Languages with C and C++”, 1996, Proceedings of the Fourth USENIX Tcl/Tk Workshop. |
Guido van Rossum, “Extending and Embedding the Python Interpreter”, Sep. 28, 2005, Python Software Foundation, section 5. |
Jun Du, “Embedding Python in C/C++: Part I”, Oct. 5, 2005, Code Project. |
“Oracle9i Developer Suite”, Date: Dec. 2001, http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ids/pdf/9ids2—twp.pdf. |
Jai, Benchiao, “RADIUS: Rapid Application Delivery, Installation and Upgrade System”, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/6067/16205/00750034.pdf?isnumber=&arnumber=750034. |
Merilinna, Janne, “A Tool for Quality-Driven Architecture Model Transformation”, Date: 2005, http://virtual.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2005/P561.pdf. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080222627 A1 | Sep 2008 | US |