Data processing: database and file management or data structures – Database design – Data structure types
Reexamination Certificate
2001-05-14
2004-06-08
Breene, John (Department: 2177)
Data processing: database and file management or data structures
Database design
Data structure types
C707S793000, C707S793000, C717S168000, C717S174000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06748380
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to increasing a computer system's protection of system software, other software, and data from unauthorized, improper, or incorrect modification by an end developer or other software or agents, for example by checking or monitoring of information, such as authorization code data.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Interconnectivity frequently requires new code in legacy applications, typically COBOL on mainframe computers, or new interface or client applications interfacing with existing legacy applications, frequently customized interfaces on proprietary versions of SQL servers. The very process of applying the new code to a base or legacy application may corrupt either the program code or the stored data, and the legacy or base application, because of a mismatched tool or add-on.
For example, in opening, editing, and saving, by way of illustration only and not limitation, COBOL files, a new tool designed for a newer COBOL version, may open up the target COBOL file written and compiled using an earlier version of COBOL, read the target COBOL file into the development tool, and inadvertently convert the target COBOL file from the old version to the new version upon saving. This mismatch totally corrupts the now saved COBOL file. Another example arises when the development tool encounters IBM EBCDIC COBOL (extended binary-coded decimal interchange code), converts it to ASCII, applies the changes using a later version of COBOL, and reconverts the changed file back to EBCDIC with disastrous results. Unfortunately, industry standard conversion programs allow different operating systems to change a file from one code to another, as EBCDIC COBOL 85 to ASCII COBOL 85 to ASCII COBOL 97 to EBCDIC COBOL 97, to run on an EBCDIC COBOL 85 platform, and now with overwriting of one or more of the sequence area, the indicator area, area a (columns 8-11), area b (columns 12-72), or the label area, introducing unrecognized commands, improper data types, line wrap or other artifacts or errors.
Exemplary errors and artifacts that can be inadvertently introduced include ignoring or disregarding the column dependency and fixed zones of COBOL, omitting sections required by the target version of COBOL, entering improper data, or accepting incorrect, editor suggested, defaults in the required COBOL sections (Identification, Program ID, Environment Division). Still other errors include syntactical errors and formatting errors from one version of the target COBOL file to the incorrect version of COBOL supported by the development tool. Still other sources of file corruption include entering reserved words (commands) that differ from one COBOL version to another.
How this happens is shown in
FIG. 1
, which illustrates a legacy file
101
being edited by an integrated development environment (“IDE”) including a development tool,
103
. The legacy file
101
, represented in the FIGURE as an S/390 DBMS SQL file
101
has one set of concatenation commands, character string extraction commands, data type conversions, aliases, and the like. These particular SQL functions are among the set of SQL functions that differ between versions of SQL. The file
101
is exported to a Unix workstation with an Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
103
that supports a different version of SQL. The S/390 DBMS SQL file
101
is modified, and returned from the work station with another, different set of concatenation commands, character string extraction commands, data type conversions, and aliases. These commands and functions are proper for a different version of a DBMS, but not for the DBMS version
101
residing on the S/390 platform.
Similar kinds of errors or file corruption are just as likely in writing applications to the various versions of SQL and DBMSs. Typically, an application program runs as a plug-in or application on top of a DBMS. As used herein “plug-in” applications, which may be tools, are programs that can easily be installed and used as part of a base program. A plug-in application is recognized automatically by the base program and its function is integrated into the target file that is being presented. The program or plug-in could be an order entry program, an inventory management program, a financial program, a CRM program, or the like. When there is a need to port the application program to a different version of SQL running on a different DBMS, the differences between frequently used commands in modern versions of SQL running on different DBMSs can wreak havoc throughout the enterprise. One version of SQL may use a plus sign for concatenation while the other version of SQL use two pipes for concatenation; there may be differences in one or more of creating column name aliases, extracting part of a character string, performing data type conversions, returning a number's ceiling, getting a current date or the next day's date. Still other problems include operations within a GROUP_BY, improper JOINs, table aliases with and without AS, the use of FROM and FROM following DELETE, the CREATE_TABLE syntax, the use of NULL and NOT_NULL, ALTER_TABLE rules and implications, DROP_TABLE rules and implications, the use or non-use of ORDER_BY in VIEWs, SAVEPOINT creation and use, and ranges (minimum values, maximum values, ranges, data types, user defined data types).
For example, in the case of savepoints, one DBMS's SQL establishes savepoints by:
SAVEPOINT delete1
. . .
ROLLBACK delete1
while another DBMS's SQL establishes savepoints by
SAVE TRANSACTION delete1
. . .
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION delete1
Vastly different code is used to achieve the same result, and this is not anomalous or atypical. It is a real world problem faced by real world programmers every day. For this reason, platform owners developing new applications, for example, e-business applications, based upon or interfacing with legacy systems, as well as systems running on disparate platforms, are challenged with the need to protect the base legacy system (or other host systems) from corruption, and to uniquely identify and associate various file types and artifacts from multiple disparate platforms with the appropriate integrated development environments (IDE), viewers, editors and transformation tools compatible with the characteristics and attributes of those objects. Use of the wrong integrated development environments, viewers, editors and transformation tools can lead to corruption of files and loss of data.
Thus, a clear need exists to enable a platform owner to protect their software assets from corruption.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
According to the method, system, and program product of our invention, target applications, typically, legacy applications, and the data resident therein, is protected from corruption and even destruction by comparing and matching a repository of target file attributes (target file metadata) and development environment, viewer, editor, or transformation tool capabilities (development tool metadata).
This is accomplished through the method, system, and program product of our invention, which provide for accessing a target file with a potentially corrupting development tool. The target file is characterized by its attributes, and the development tool is characterized by its tool capabilities, including the capability to return the target file with possibly harmfully changed attributes. Protecting target file attributes from harmful change is accomplished by limiting development tool access to the target file if the development tool capabilities mismatch target file attributes. This is achieved by determining target file attributes from a source of target file attribute information. The source of target file information is chosen from, for example, target file header information, a repository of target file attributes, an associated DTD file, or an encapsulating XML file. The actual determination of access is done by matching target file attributes to tool capabilities and granting development tool access to the target file if there is a match of targ
England Laurence Edward
Glaser Howard Justin
Poole Rebecca Lau
Breene John
International Business Machines - Corporation
Lu Kuen S.
Nisewaner Karna J.
LandOfFree
Method, system, and program product for permission to access... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method, system, and program product for permission to access..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method, system, and program product for permission to access... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3293612