Method and apparatus for upgrading a software application in the presence of user modifications Number:7,076,778 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) owispatent A method for upgrading (31-b of FIG. 1) a software application (35-b) from a prior version to a subsequent version while preserving user modifications to the prior application. The method includes comparing differences between the two versions of the software applications. This is followed by enumerating the differences between the two versions of the software applications; and determining which differences between the two versions of the software are conflicting and which are compatible. The compatible changes are made (7). Also disclosed is an article of manufacture containing computer readable program code for carrying out the above process, and a program storage device carrying the code.<H modifications, application, Method, and, appa, 7076778.html, Patent, pto, 7076778

Title: Method and apparatus for upgrading a software application in the presence of user modifications

Abstract: A method for upgrading (31-b of FIG. 1) a software application (35-b) from a prior version to a subsequent version while preserving user modifications to the prior application. The method includes comparing differences between the two versions of the software applications. This is followed by enumerating the differences between the two versions of the software applications; and determining which differences between the two versions of the software are conflicting and which are compatible. The compatible changes are made (7). Also disclosed is an article of manufacture containing computer readable program code for carrying out the above process, and a program storage device carrying the code.

Patent Number: 7,076,778 Issued on 07/11/2006 to Brodersen, et al.

Inventors: Brodersen; Robert S. (Redwood City, CA); Coker; John L. (Hillsborough, CA); Hastings; Mark C (Palo Alto, CA)
Assignee: Siebel Systems, Inc. (San Mateo, CA)

Appl. No.: 079499

Filed: February 22, 2002

Related U.S. Patent Documents


Application Number	Filing Date	Patent Number	Issue Date
09377892	Apr., 2002	6367077
PCT/US98/03575	Feb., 1998
60039467	Feb., 1997

Current U.S. Class: 717/170 ; 717/122; 717/169

Current International Class: G06F 9/44 (20060101)

Field of Search: 717/104-123,168-173

References Cited [Referenced By]

U.S. Patent Documents


4558413	December 1985	Schmidt et al.
4809170	February 1989	Leblang et al.
5155847	October 1992	Kirouac et al.
5481722	January 1996	Skinner
5493682	February 1996	Tyra et al.
5504879	April 1996	Eisenberg et al.
5574898	November 1996	Leblang et al.
5588143	December 1996	Stupek
5809287	September 1998	Stupek, Jr. et al.
5970490	October 1999	Morgenstern

Foreign Patent Documents


0498130	Aug., 1992	EP
0703531	Mar., 1996	EP

Other References

Munch, "Versioning in a Software Engineering Database--the Change Oriented Way", Division of Computer Systems and Telematics, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, 1993. cited by examiner .
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, "Strategy for Collecting Software Inventory Information Across a Local Area Network", vol. 37, No. 12, Dec. 12, 1994, pp. 275-276. cited by other.

Primary Examiner: Vo; Ted T.
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Perkins Coie LLP

Parent Case Text

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/377,892, filed on Aug. 19, 1999, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,367,077, on Apr. 7, 2002, which is a continuation of PCT International Application No. PCT/US98/03575, filed Feb. 24, 1998, which claims the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/039,467, filed Feb. 27, 1997. These related applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.

Claims

We claim:

1. A computer-implemented method of upgrading a software application by merging two modified versions of a common ancestor version, the method comprising: receiving indications of a first modified version of the common ancestor version and of a distinct second modified version of the common ancestor version; and without user intervention, automatically creating a new version of the software application by merging the first and second modified versions, by automatically collecting object definitions from an ancestor repository associated with the common ancestor version, from a first repository associated with the first modified version, and from a second repository associated with the second modified version; identifying a first set of modified objects in the first modified version by comparing against attributes of corresponding objects in the common ancestor version based on the object definitions; identifying a second set of modified objects in the second modified version by comparing against attributes of corresponding objects in the common ancestor version based on the object definitions; determining which of the identified modified objects in the first set of modified objects are compatible with the second modified version; and creating the new version of the software application by merging the compatible modified objects with the second modified version.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising determining which of the identified modified objects in the first set of modified objects are conflicting modified objects with the second modified version.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: automatically notifying a user of the conflicting modified objects; and presenting options to the user for resolving the conflicting modified objects.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 including automatically resolving one or more of the conflicting modified objects without user intervention based at least in part on predefined conflict resolution rules, and wherein the automatic determining of the compatible modified objects includes selecting the resolved conflicting modified objects.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3 including determining an importance of each of one or more of the conflicting modified objects, and wherein the notifying of the user of conflicting modified objects includes providing notification of the determined importances.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the modified objects determined to be compatible include conflicting modified objects that are identified as superficial.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the modified objects determined to be compatible include conflicting modified objects identified as being of high priority.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 including, before identifying the first set of modified objects and the second set of modified objects, displaying to a user a graphical user interface related to creating the new version of the software application, and wherein the identifying the first set of modified objects and the second set of modified objects is in response to an indication from the user via the graphical user interface.

9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8 wherein the displaying of the graphical user interface to the user includes displaying an option to include differences between the first and second modified versions only if the differences correspond to high priority aspects of the first and second modified versions and/or displaying an option to abort creating the new version if a specified number of errors is exceeded.

10. The computer-implemented method of claim 8 wherein one of the modified versions has been customized by the user so as to delete one or more aspects of the common ancestor version, wherein the aspects of the common ancestor version deleted in the one modified version have not been deleted in the other modified version, and including displaying an option to the user to select the deleted aspects as being a compatible difference such that the created new version does not include the deleted aspects.

11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 including displaying to a user at least some of the differences between each of the two modified versions and the common ancestor version so as to allow visual comparison of those two modified versions.

12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein at least one of the modified versions includes modifications made by a user and/or at least one of the modified versions includes modifications made by a developer of the software application.

13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the first modified version includes user modifications to a prior version of the software application, wherein the second modified version is an upgrade for that prior version, and wherein the creating of the new version is to upgrade the software application to a version of the upgrade that includes at least some of the user modifications.

14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the user-modified prior version comprises a first plurality of objects and the prior version comprises a third plurality of objects and the upgrade version comprises a second plurality of objects, and wherein the determining of the first and second sets of modified objects comprises: determining one or more objects from the first plurality of objects that share a common name with one or more objects from the third plurality of objects; for each of at least one of the objects from the first plurality of objects that shares a common name with one of the objects from the third plurality of objects, determining one or more attributes associated with that object that differs from the attributes associated with the object that shares the common name and including data related to the difference between those attributes in the first set of modified objects; determining one or more objects from the second plurality of objects that share a common name with one or more objects from the third plurality of objects; and for each of at least one of the objects from the second plurality of objects that shares a common name with one of the objects from the third plurality of objects, determining one or more attributes associated with that object that differs from the attributes associated with the object that shares the common name and including data related to the difference between those attributes in the second set of modified objects.

15. The computer-implemented method of claim 13 wherein the user-modified prior version comprises a first plurality of objects, the prior version comprises a third plurality of objects, and the upgrade version comprises a second plurality of objects, and wherein the determining of the modified objects comprises determining that an object from the first plurality of objects is not included within the second or third plurality of objects and indicating that that object is a compatible modified object.

16. The computer-implemented method of claim 13 wherein the user-modified prior version comprises a first plurality of objects, the prior version comprises a third plurality of objects, and the upgrade version comprises a second plurality of objects, and wherein the determining of the set of differences comprises determining that an object from the second and third plurality of objects is not included within the first plurality of objects and indicating that absence of that object from the first plurality of objects is a conflicting modified object.

17. A computer-readable medium whose contents cause a computing device to perform a method for upgrading at least portions of a modified version of a software application based at least in part on another distinct modified version of the software application, the method comprising: automatically collecting object definitions from an ancestor repository associated with the common ancestor version, from a first repository associated with the first modified version, and from a second repository associated with the second modified version; identifying a first set modified objects in the first modified version by comparing against attributes of corresponding objects in the common ancestor version based on the object definitions; identifying a second set of modified objects in the second modified version by comparing against attributes of corresponding objects in the common ancestor version based on the object definitions; determining which of the identified modified objects in the first set of modified objects are compatible with the second modified version; and creating the new version of the software application by merging the compatible modified objects with the second modified version.

18. The computer-readable medium of claim 17 wherein the portions of the first modified version that differ from the portions of the second modified version are objects associated with the first modified version that differ from objects associated with the second modified version.

19. The computer-readable medium of claim 17 wherein the contents that cause the computing device to perform the method is executable software code.

20. An apparatus for upgrading a software application from a user-modified prior version to an upgrade version, the user-modified prior version and the upgrade version having a common ancestor version, the apparatus comprising: a first component able to automatically collect object definitions from an ancestor repository associated with the common ancestor version, from a first repository associated with the first modified version, and from a second repository associated with the second modified version; a second component able to identify a first set modified objects in the first modified version by comparing against attributes of corresponding objects in the common ancestor version based on the object definitions and to identify a second set of modified objects in the second modified version by comparing against attributes of corresponding objects in the common ancestor version based on the object definitions; a third component able to determine which of the identified modified objects in the first set of modified objects are compatible with the second modified version; and a fourth component able to create the new version of the software application by merging the compatible modified objects with the second modified version.

21. A computing device for upgrading a software application from a user-modified prior version to an upgrade version, wherein the user modified prior version and the upgrade version have a common ancestor version, said apparatus comprising: means for automatically collecting object definitions from an ancestor repository associated with the common ancestor version, from a first repository associated with the first modified version, and from a second repository associated with the second modified version; means for identifying a first set modified objects in the first modified version by comparing against attributes of corresponding objects in the common ancestor version based on the object definitions; means for identifying a second set of modified objects in the second modified version by comparing against attributes of corresponding objects in the common ancestor version based on the object definitions; means for determining which of the identified modified objects in the first set of modified objects are compatible with the second modified version; and means for creating the new version of the software application by merging the compatible modified objects with the second modified version.

Description

INTRODUCTION

TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention relates to a system and method for providing updates to a network of partially replicated relational database systems and for providing efficient access to a database by a remote client using a networked proxy server. More particularly, it provides for a system and method of migrating to a successive level of a software distribution incorporating local modifications.

BACKGROUND

Relational databases are a commonly-employed data structure for representing data in a business or other environment. A relational database represents data in the form of a collection of two-dimensional tables. Each table comprises a series of cells arranged in rows and columns. Typically, a row in a table represents a particular observation. A column represents either a data field or a pointer to a row in another table.

For example, a database describing an organizational structure may have one table to describe each position in the organization, and another table to describe each employee in the organization. The employee table may include information specific to the employee, such as name, employee number, age, salary, etc. The position table may include information specific to the position, such as the position title ("salesman", "vice president", etc.), a salary range, and the like. The tables may be related by, for example, providing in each row of the employee table a pointer to a particular row in the position table, coordinated so that, for each row in the employee table, there is a pointer to the particular row in the position table that describes that employee's position. A relational database management system (RDBMS) supports "joining" these tables in response to a query from a user, so that the user making a query about, for example, a particular employee, may be provided with a report of the selected employee, including not only the information in the employee table, but also the information in the related position table.

Relational databases may be much more complex than this example, with several tables and a multiplicity of relations among them.

With the widespread use of inexpensive portable computers, it is advantageous to replicate a database onto a portable computer for reference at locations remote from the central computer. The replicated database may then be referenced by the user of the portable computer, without requiring reference to the main database which may be maintained at a central location inconvenient to the user of the portable computer. However, there are a number of difficulties with the use of a replicated database.

One disadvantage is that a full copy of the central database may require more data storage than is desired or economical. For example, a salesman working in the field may need to refer to the database for information regarding sales opportunities in his sales area, but have no need to refer to any information regarding sales opportunities outside of his area. One possible approach to reduce the amount of required data storage is to simply replicate only that portion of the database that is needed by the user. However, this approach does not recognize that the criteria to determine which portions of the data are required is likely to vary over time. For example, the salesman may have a new city added to his territory. Under conventional approaches, the salesman would need to re-replicate his local copy of the database, this time selecting data including the added city. Such a practice is inconvenient, subject to error, and time-consuming.

A further disadvantage to a replicated database is the difficulties encountered in attempting to update data using the replicated copy. A change made to the replicated database is not made to the central database, leading to a discrepancy between the information that is stored in the replicated copy of the database and the information that is stored in the central database. Although it is possible to journal modifications made to the replicated copy and apply an identical modification to the central database, one problem that this approach faces is the possibility of colliding updates; that is, where a user of a replicated copy makes a change to data that is also changed by a user of the central copy of by the user of another replicated copy.

In addition, the system, including the central database and replicated database, involves a considerable amount of software which is often customized to meet the needs of a particular enterprise. A great deal of effort is expended on configuring the software and writing custom modules and objects. If the software is upgraded to a new release, a considerable amount of programming time and effort are required to configure the new release and reimplement the customer-specific functionality of the earlier version.

It is therefore desirable to provide a capability to maintain one or more partially-replicated copies of a central database, in such a way that the degree of replication may be easily changed without requiring a refresh of the entire replicated database, and that permits updates to be coordinated among users of the central database and users of the partially replicated databases. Additionally, it is desirable to provide a facility which allows enterprises to rapidly migrate their changes from one version of the software to another version of the software, such as configurations and objects.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is directed to a method of maintaining a partially replicated database in such a way that updates made to a central database, or to another partially replicated database, are selectively propagated to the partially replicated database. Updates are propagated to a partially replicated database if the owner of the partially replicated database is deemed to have visibility to the data being updated. Visibility is determined by use of predetermined rules stored in a rules database. In one aspect of the invention, the stored rules are assessed against data content of various tables that make up a logical entity, known as a docking object, that is being updated.

In another aspect of the invention, the stored rules are assessed against data content of one or more docking objects that are not necessarily updated, but that are related to a docking object being updated. In one embodiment, the visibility attributes of the related docking objects are recursively determined.

In yet another aspect of the invention, changes in visibility are determined to enable the central computer to direct the nodes to insert the docking object into its partially replicated database. Such changes in visibility are determined so as to enable the central computer to direct a node to remove a docking object from its partially replicated database.

In a further aspect of the invention, the predetermined rules are in declarative form and specify visibility of data based upon structure of the data without reference to data content.

In still another aspect of the invention, the transactions made to the database are ordered and processed in such a way as to reduce the computational resources required to calculate the visibility of the transactions.

In another aspect of the invention, a facility is provided to allow an enterprise to rapidly migrate its changes in one version of the software to another version of the software.

In yet another apsect of the invention, provision is made for migrating customized ODF and RC files from a previous version into a new release.

These and other aspects of the inventions will become apparent to one skilled in the art by reference to the following drawings and detailed description.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts an overview of the operation of one embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 depicts a database schema that shows the relationship of the various components that make up a Docking Object.

FIG. 3 depicts steps performed by an update manager to update a database.

FIG. 4 depicts steps performed by a Docking Manager to transmit and/or receive one or more transaction logs.

FIG. 5 depicts the steps performed by a merge processor to merge transaction log records into an existing database.

FIG. 6 depicts the steps performed by a log manager to prepare a partial transaction log.

FIG. 7 depicts the steps performed by a visibility calculator for calculating visibility for a docking object as invoked by a log manager.

FIG. 8 depicts the steps performed to synchronize a partially replicated database in response to a change in data visibility.

FIG. 9 depicts a schematic of a typical migration path performed by the method of the invention.

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS

Overview

FIG. 1 depicts an overview of the operation of one embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 1 depicts a central computer system 1 and three remote computer systems (or "nodes") 21-a, 21-b, and 21-c. Each of nodes 21-a, 21-b and 21-c are depicted in various states of communication with central computer system 1, as will be more fully explained. Central computer system 1 includes a central database 3, a docking manager 5, a merge processor 7 and a log manager 9. Central computer system 1 additionally optionally includes update manager 11 responsive to user input 13.

Node 21-a is a remote computer system, such as a mobile client such as a laptop computer. Node 21-a includes a partially replicated remote database 23-a, update manager 31-a responsive to user input 33-a, docking manager 25-a and merge manager 27-a. In operation, update manager is responsive to user input 33-a to make changes to remote database 23-a as directed by the operator of node 21-a. Updates made are recorded, or journaled, in node update log 35-a.

At some point at the convenience of the operator of node 21-a, node docking manager 35-a is activated, and enters into communication with central docking manager 5. Update log 35-a is taken as input by node docking manager 25-a, and provided to central docking manager 5. Central docking manager 5 creates a received node update log 19, which contains all the information that had been recorded in update log 35-a. Optionally, partial log 17-a is taken as input by central docking manager 5 and provided to node docking manager 25-a, as more fully described herein.

At some point in time, at the convenience of the operator of central computer system 1, merge processor 7 is activated. Merge processor 7 takes as input received node update log 19, and applies the updates described therein to central database 3. In the process of applying the updates from received node update log 19, merge processor journals the updates applied to central update log 15. Optionally, update manager 11, responsive to user input 12 makes additional changed to central database 3 as directed by the operator of central computer system 1. The updates made by update manager 11 are additionally journaled in central update log 15.

At some point in time, at the convenience of the operator of central computer system 1, log manager 9 is activated. Log manager 9 takes as input central update log 15 and produces as output a set of partial logs 17-a, 17-b and 17-c according to visibility rules as will be further described herein. Each of partial logs 17-a, 17-b and 17-c corresponds to one of nodes 21-a, 21-b and 21-c. When a node docking manager such as node docking manager 25-a enters into communication with central docking manager 5 and optionally requests transmission of its corresponding partial log, central docking manager 5 takes as input the appropriate partial log, such as partial log 17-a, and presents it to node docking manager 25-a. Node docking manager 25-a then replicates partial log 17-a as merge log 37-a.

At some point in the future, at the convenience of the operator of node 21-a, merge processor 27-a is activated. Merge processor 27-a takes as input merge log 37-a, and applies the updates described therein to partially replicated database 23-a.

In addition to node 21-a, FIG. 1 also depicts two additional nodes 21-b and 21-c. Node 21-b is depicted in communication with central computer 1. However, unlike node 21-a, the operator of node 21-b has requested only to send his updates to central computer system 1, and has not requested to be presented with changes made elsewhere to be made to his partially replicated database 23-b. This may be, for example, if the operator has an urgent update that must be made as soon as possible, but does not have the time to receive updates from other nodes. Accordingly, FIG. 1 shows only transmission of node update log 35-a from node docking manager 25-b to central docking manager 5, and no transmission from central docking manager 5 to node docking manager 25-b. Accordingly, the merge manager for node 21-b is not activated and is not shown.

Likewise, node 21-c is depicted as not in communication with central computer system 1. Accordingly, the docking manager for node 21-c is not activated and is not shown.

By the cycle described above, updates made by each of nodes 21-a, 21-b and 21-c are presented to central computer system 1, permitting central database 3 to be updated accordingly. In addition, each of the updates made by each of the nodes 21-a, 21-b and 21-c, as well as updates made on central computer system 1, are routed back to each of nodes 21-a, 21-b, and 21-c, thereby keeping each of partial databases 23-a, 23-b and 23-c in synchronization with each other and with central database 3.

Database Structure

The synchronization of central database 3 with node databases 23-a, 23-b and 23-c is performed using a construct called a Docking Object. A Docking Object consists of Member Tables (including one Primary Table), Visibility Rules, Visibility Events, and related Docking Objects.

A Member Table is a table of the relational database that makes up a docking object. When a docking object is propagated from central database 3 to one of node databases 23-a, 23-b or 23-c, the propagation takes the form of an insertion into each of the Member Tables associated with the particular docking object. Similarly, when a docking object is scheduled to be removed from a database, that removal consists of deleting records from the member tables associated with the docking object. For example, a docking object that represents a sales opportunity may include tables that represent the opportunity itself (e.g., named "S_OPTY"), the product whose sale is represented by the opportunity (e.g., named "S_OPTY_PROD"), the contact for the opportunity (e.g., named "S_OPTY_CONTACT"), etc. Each of these tables is said to be a member table of the "Opportunity Docking Object."

A Primary Table is a Member Table that controls whether a particular instance of a Docking Object is visible to a particular node. The Primary Table has a Primary Row-ID value that is used to identify a row of the Primary Table being updated, deleted or inserted. For example, the "Opportunity Docking Object" may have as a primary table the table S_OPTY. The row-id of that table, i.e., S_OPTY.row_id, is the Primary Row-ID for the Opportunity Docking Object.

A Visibility Rule is a criterion that determines whether a particular instance of a Docking Object is "visible" to a particular node 21. If a Docking Object is visible to a particular node, that node will receive updates for data in the Docking Object. Visibility Rules are of two types, depending on the field RULE_TYPE. A Visibility Rule with a RULE_TYPE of "R" is referred to as an SQL Rule. An SQL Rule includes a set of Structured Query Language (SQL) statements that is evaluated to determine if any data meeting the criteria specified in the SQL statements exists in the Docking Object. If so, the Docking Object is visible to the node. A Visibility Rule with a RULE_TYPE of "O" is referred to as a Docking Object Rule. A Docking Object Rule specifies another Docking Object to be queried for visibility. If the specified Docking Object is visible, then the Docking Object pointing to it is also visible.

A Related Docking Object is a Docking Object that is propagated or deleted when the Docking Object under consideration is propagated or deleted. For example, an Opportunity Docking Object may have related Docking Objects representing the sales contacts, the organizations, the products to be sold, and the activities needed to pursue the opportunity. When an Opportunity Docking Object is propagated from Central Database 3 to one of node databases 23, the related docking objects are also propagated.

FIG. 2 depicts a database schema that shows the relationship of the various components that make up a Docking Object. The schema is a meta-database, in that it does not describe the data being accessed in the database. Rather, the schema is a separate database that defines the structure of the database being accessed. That is, it is a database comprising tables that describe the relationships and data contexts of another database.

Each of the tables shown in FIG. 2 is a table in a relational database, and as such is in row-column form. Many columns represent fields that are common to all the illustrated tables. Such fields include for example, a ROW_ID to identify a particular row in the table, as well as fields to tack the date and time that a row was created and last modified, and the identity of the user who created or modified the row. In addition, each table contains fields specific to that table, and which are described in detail below.

Table S_DOBJ 61 describes the Docking Objects in an application. Table S_DOBJ 61 includes the fields OBJ_NAME and PRIMARY_TABLE_ID. Field OBJ_NAME defines the name of the Docking Object being described. Field PRIMARY_TABLE_ID is used to identify the primary table associated with this Docking Object.

Table S_DOBJ_INST 63 describes whether a particular instance of a Docking Object, described by table S_DOBJ 61, is present on a particular node's database. Table S_DOBJ_INST 63 includes the fields NODE_ID, DOBJ_ID and PR_TBL_ROW_ID. Field NODE_ID points to a particular node table 65. Field DOBJ_ID points to the Docking Object to which the Docking Object instance applies. Field PR_TBL_ROW_ID is used to select a particular row in the Primary Table of the Docking Object. This value identifies the Docking Object instance.

Table S_REL_DOBJ 67 describes the related Docking Objects of a particular Docking Object, described by table S_DOBJ 61. Table S_REL_DOBJ 67 includes the fields DOBJ_ID, REL_DOBJ_ID, and SQL_STATEMENT. Field DOBJ_ID identifies the Docking Object that owns a particular related Docking Object. Field REL_DOBJ_ID identifies the related Docking Object that is owned by the Docking Object identified by DOBJ_ID. Field SQL_STATEMENT is an SQL statement that may be executed to obtain the Primary ID value of the related Docking Object.

Table S_DOBJ_TBL 69 describes the member tables of a particular Docking Object, described by table S_DOBJ 61. Table S_DOBJ_TBL 69 includes the fields DOBJ_ID, TBL_ID, and VIS_EVENT_FLG. Field DOBJ_ID identifies the Docking Object that contains the member table described by the row. Field TBL_ID identifies the particular table in the database that is the member table described by the row. Field VIS_EVENT_FLG is a flag that indicates whether a change to this Docking Object can result in a visibility event. A value of "Y" indicates that a change can result in a visibility event; a value of "N" indicates that it cannot.

Table S_DOBJ_VIS_RULE 71 contains the visibility rules associated with a particular Docking Object. S_DOBJ_VIS_RULE 71 contains the fields DOBJ_ID, RULE_SEQUENCE, RULE_TYPE, SQL_STATEMENT and CHECK_DOBJ_ID. Field DOBJ_ID identifies the Docking Object with which a particular visibility rule is associated. Field RULE_SEQUENCE is a sequence number that indicates the sequence, relative to other visibility rules in table S_DOBJ_VIS_RULE 71, in which the particular visibility rule should be run. RULE_TYPE specifies whether the particular visibility rule is of type "R," indicating an SQL visibility rule or of type "O," indicating a Docking Object visibility rule.

If RULE_TYPE is equal to "R," field CHECK_DOBJ_ID is not meaningful, and field SQL_STATEMENT contains an SQL statement that is evaluated using the Primary ROW-ID of the primary table associated with this Docking Object and a particular Node 21. If the SQL statement returns any records, the Docking Object is deemed to be visible to the Node 21 for which visibility is being determined.

If RULE_TYPE is equal to "O," both field CHECK_DOBJ_ID and field SQL_STATEMENT are meaningful. Field CHECK_DOBJ_ID specifies a docking object whose visibility should be determined. If the specified docking object is deemed to be visible, then the docking object associated with the visibility rule is also visible. Field SQL_STATEMENT contains a SQL statement that, when executed, returns the Row-ID of the docking object identified by CHECK_DOBJ_ID that corresponds to the docking object instance associated with the visibility rule.

Table S_APP_TBL 73 is an Application Table that describes all the tables used in a particular application. It is pointed to by table S_DOBJ_TBL 69 for each member table in a docking object, and by table S_DOBJ for the primary table in a docking object. S_APP_TBL 73 points to table S_APP_COL 75, which is an Application Column Table that describes the columns of data in a particular application. S_APP_TBL 73 points to table S_APP_COL 75 directly through a primary key and indirectly through such means as a Foreign Key Column Table 81, User Key Column Table 83, and Column Group Table 85. The relationship of an Application Table, Application Column Table, Foreign Key Column Table, User Key Column Table and Column Group Table are well known in the art and are not further described.

Update Processing

FIG. 3 depicts steps performed by an update manager 31 such as update manager 31-a, 31-b or 31-c in updating a database, such as a node database 23-a, 23-b or 23-c, responsive to user input. Execution of update manager 31 begins in step 101. In step 103, the update manager 31 accepts from the user input 33 in the form of a command requesting that the data in database 23 be altered. The request may be in the form of a request to delete a row of a table, to add a row to a table, or to change the value of a cell at a particular column of a particular row in a table. In step 105, using a well-known means, the update manager 31 applies the requested update to database 23. In step 107, the update manager 31 creates a log record describing the update and writes it to update log 35.

The contents of a log record describe the update made. Each log record indicates the node identifier of the node making the update, an identification of the table being updated, and an identification of the type of update being made, i.e., an insertion of a new row, a deletion of an existing row, or an update to an existing row. For an insertion, the log record additionally includes an identifier of the row being inserted, including its primary key and the values of the other columns in the row. For a deletion, the log record identifies the primary key of the row being deleted. For an update, the log record identifies the primary key of the row being updated, the column within the row being updated, the old value of the cell at the addressed row and column, and the new value of the cell.

After writing a log record in step 107, the update processor exits for this update. The foregoing description of the update processing preferably includes additional steps not material to the present invention, for example, to assure authorization of the user to make the update, to stage and commit the write to the database to allow for rollback in the event of software or hardware failure, and the like. These steps are well-known in the art and are not described further.

An update manager 11 executing in central computer system 1 operates in an analogous manner, except that it updates central database 3 and writes its log records to central update log 11.

Docking Processing

FIG. 4 depicts steps performed by a Docking Manager 25 such as Docking Manager 25-a, 25-b or 25-c to transmit and/or receive one or more transaction logs. Docking Manager 25 is invoked by the user of a remote node such as node 21-a, 21-b or 21-c, whereby the user requests that the node dock with central computer 1 to upload an update log such as update log 35-a to central computer 1, to download a partial log such as partial log 17-a, or both. Execution of Docking Manager 25 begins in step 121. In step 123, Docking Manager 25 connects with central computer 1 under the control of Central Docking Manager 5. This connection can be any connection that enables data exchange. It is anticipated that the most common form of a connection is a telephone line used in conjunction with a modem, but other forms of data connection, such as a Local Area Network or a TCP/IP connection may also be used. Step 125 checks to see whether the user has requested that node update log 35-a be uploaded to the Central Computer 1. If so, execution proceeds to step 127. If not, step 127 is skipped and control is given to step 129. In step 127, Docking Manager 25 uploads its update log to central computer 1. The upload may be accomplished with any known file transfer means, such as XMODEM, ZMODEM, KERMIT, FTP, ASCII transfer, or any other method of transmitting data. In step 129, Docking Manager 25 checks to see whether the user has requested that a partial log such as partial log 17-a be downloaded from Central Computer 1. If so, execution proceeds to step 131. If not, step 131 is skipped and control is given to step 133. In step 131, Docking Manager 25 downloads its partial log from central computer 1. The download may be accomplished with any known file transfer means, such as XMODEM, ZMODEM, KERMIT, FTP, ASCII transfer, or any other method of transmitting data. In step 133, having completed the requested data transfer, Docking Manager 25 exits.

Merge Processing

Merge processing is performed by a processor such as node merge processor 27-a, 27-b, or 27-c, or central merge processor 7. The merge process serves to update its associated database with a transaction that has been entered by a user of a computer remote from the computer where merge processing is being performed. Merge processing is analogous to update processing and is similar in form to update processing as previously disclosed with reference to FIG. 3, with three differences. First, the input to a merge processor is not an update entered directly by a user, but rather is a log file that is obtained from a computer remote from the computer where the merge is executing. A second difference is that, as shown by in FIG. 1, merge processing does not produce a log when performed at a node. The function of a log on a node is to record a transaction for propagation to Central Computer system 1 and thence to other nodes as required. A transaction that is the subject of a merge in a node has been communicated to Central Computer System 1, and there is no need to re-communicate it.

A third difference is that merge processing must be capable of detecting and resolving multiple conflicting transactions. For example, assume that a field contains the value "Keith Palmer." Assume further that a user at node 27-a enters a transaction to update that field to "Carl Lake," and a user at node 27-b enters a transaction to update the same field to "Greg Emerson." Without collision detection, data among various nodes may become corrupt. When the transaction for user 27-a is merged, the field is updated from "Keith Palmer" to "Carl Lake." Without collision handling, when the transaction for node 27-b is merged, the field would be updated to "Greg Emerson," and the central database would then be out of synch with the database of node 27-a. Furthermore, when merge processing is performed on each of nodes 27-a and 27-b, each node will update its database with the other's transactions, leaving at least one node out of synch with the other node and with central database.

Therefore, merge processing must also have a means of detecting collisions and correcting them. In the above example, a simple way to detect and correct a collision is to compare the value in the database to the value that the merge log reflects as being the previous value in the node database. If the two values do not match, Merge processor 7 may reject the transaction and generate a corrective transaction to be sent to the node from which the conflicting transaction originated. In the above example, when the transaction for node 27-b was presented to merge processor 7, merge processor 7 would compare "Keith Palmer," the prior value of the field as recorded by node 27-b to "Carl Lake," the present value of the field as recorded in central database 3. Detecting the mismatch, merge processor 7 may then generate a transaction to change the value "Greg Emerson" to "Carl Lake," and write that transaction to update log 15. In a subsequent docking operation, that transaction would be routed back to node 27-b to bring its database 23-b in synch with the other databases.

The above is one example of a collision and a resulting corrective action. Other types of collisions include, for example, an update to a row that has previously been deleted, inserting a row that has previously been inserted, and the like. Merge processing must detect and correct each of these collisions. This may be performed using any of a number of well-known methods, and is not discussed further.

FIG. 5 depicts the steps performed by merge processor such as central merge processor 7. Although it depicts merge processor 7 writing to central database 3 and to transaction log 15, it is equally representative of a node merge processor such as node merge processor 27-a, 27-b or 27-c updating a node database 23-a, 23-b or 23-c. Merge processing begins at step 141. In step 143, merge processor 7 finds the first unprocessed transaction on received log 19. In step 147, merge processor 7 selects a transaction from received log 19. In step 149, merge processor 149 attempts to update database 3 according to the transaction selected in step 147. In step 151, merge processor 7 determines whether the database update of step 149 failed due to a collision. If so, merge processor proceeds to step 153, which generates a corrective transaction. Following the generation of the corrective transaction, the merge processor returns to step 149 and again attempts to update database 3. If no collision was detected in step 151, execution proceeds to step 157. In step 157, merge processing checks to see if it is executing on central computer 1. If so, step 155 is executed to journal the transaction to log 15. In any case, either if step 157 determines that the merge processing is being performed on a node or after step 155, execution proceeds to step 159. Step 159 checks to see if any transactions remain to be processed from log 19. If so, execution repeats from step 147, where the next transaction is selected. If not, merge processing exits in step 161.

Log Management

FIG. 6 depicts the steps to be performed by log manager 9 to prepare a partial transaction log such as partial transaction log 17-a, 17-b, or 17-c. The procedure depicted in FIG. 6 is executed for each node available to dock with central computer system 1. Log manager 9 begins execution in step 171. In step 173, Log Manager 9 finds the first unprocessed transaction for the node whose partial transaction log is being prepared. In step 175, log manager 9 selects a transaction for processing. In step 177, log manager 9 checks to see whether the selected transaction originated on the same node for which processing is being performed. If so, there is no need to route the transaction back to the node, and control proceeds to step 179. Step 179 checks to see whether there are any transactions remaining to be processed. If so, control is given again to step 175. If not, control passes to step 189, which records the last transaction that was processed for this node, and then exits at step 191. If the transaction originates in other than the same node as the node for which processing is being performed, control is given to step 181. Step 181 calls a visibility calculator to determine whether the selected transaction is visible to the node being processed. The Visibility calculator routine is described in detail further herein. In step 183, merge processor 9 checks to see whether the visibility calculator determined that the transaction is visible. If it is not visible, control is passed to step 179, which performs as disclosed above. If the transaction is visible, control is passed to step 185. Step 185 writes a record for this transaction to the partial transaction log for the node being processed, for example, partial transaction log 17-a for node 21-a. In step 187, the log manager 9 records the last transaction that was processed for this node, and then passes control to step 179, which determines whether to select additional transactions or exit, as disclosed above.

Visibility Calculation

FIG. 7 depicts a flowchart describing the process a visibility calculator for calculating visibility for a docking object as invoked by step 181 of log manager 9. The visibility calculator is called with the node-id of the node for which visibility is being calculated, the docking object for which the visibility is being calculated, and the row-id of the docking object whose visibility id being calculated. The visibility calculator uses this information, in conjunction with information obtained from meta-data stored in the schema depicted in FIG. 2, to determine whether a particular transaction that updates a particular row of a particular docking object is visible to a particular node.

The Visibility calculator begins execution at step 201. In step 203, the visibility calculator makes a default finding that the transaction is not visible. Therefore, unless the visibility calculator determines that a transaction is visible, it will exit with a finding of no visibility. In step 205, the visibility calculator selects the first visibility rule associated with the docking object. This is done by finding the table S_DOBJ_VIS_RULE 71 associated with the current Docking Object as pointed to by table S_DOBJ 61. In step 205, the visibility calculator selects the row of table S_DOBJ_VIS_RULE 71 with the lowest value for field RULE_SEQUENCE.

In step 207, the Visibility Calculator checks the field RULE_TYPE for a value of "R." The value of "R" indicates that the rule is a SQL visibility rule. If so, the Visibility Calculator proceeds to step 209. In step 209 the Visibility Calculator obtains a SQL statement from field SQL_STATEMENT and executes it. An example of such an SQL statement might be:

TABLE-US-00001 SELECT `X` FROM S_OPTY_EMP WHERE OPTY_ID = :PrimaryRowId AND EMP_ID = :NodeId;

This SQL statement causes a query to be made of application table S_OPTY_EMP. The query selects any records meeting two criteria. First, the records selected must have a field OPTY_ID, which is a row id or key, equal to the Primary Row-ID of the Docking Object whose visibility is being determined. Second, the records selected must have a field EMP_ID, which may be for example, an identifier of a particular employee, equal to the NodeId of the node for whom visibility is being determined. In ordinary language, this SQL statement will return records only if a row is found in a table that matches employees to opportunities, where the opportunity is equal to the one being updated, and the employee to whom the opportunity is assigned is the operator of the node.

This is a simplistic example, provided for maximum comprehension. More complex SQL statements are possible. For example, the rule:

TABLE-US-00002 SELECT `X` FROM &Table_Owner.S_ACCT_POSTN ap &Table_Owner.S_EMP_POSTN ep WHERE ap.POSITION_ID = ep.POSITION_ID AND ep.EMP_ID = :NodeId;

This rule queries the tables S_ACCT_POSTN (which relates a particular account with a particular position in the organization that is responsible for the account) and S_EMP_POSTN (which relates what employee corresponds to a particular position). The condition "ap.POSITION_ID=ep.POSITION_ID" requires finding a row in the account-to-position table that has the same position as a row in the employee-to-position table. The condition "ep.EMP_ID=:NodeId" further requires that the selected row in the employee-to-position table also have an Employee ID equal to the ID of the user of the Node for which visibility is being determined. In ordinary language, this condition allows visibility if the employee occupies the position that has responsibility for the account in the docking object being updated.

There is no particular limit to the complexity of the conditions in the SQL statement used to evaluate visibility. Particular implementations of SQL may impose limitations, and resource considerations may make it desirable to use less complex statements, but these limitations are not inherent in the invention.

Step 211 evaluates whether the execution of SQL_STATEMENT in step 209 returned any records. If records were returned, this indicates that the Node for which visibility is being checked has visibility to the docking object being processed. Accordingly, if records are returned, the Visibility Calculator proceeds to step 213. In step 213, the transaction is marked visible. Because no further rules need to be evaluated to determine visibility, the visibility calculator proceeds to step 228. Step 228 synchronizes the databases by determining whether the calculated visibility requires the insertion or deletion of a docking object into a particular node's partially replicated database. This may occur, for example, if a node is determined to have visibility to a docking object due to a change to a related docking object. For example, an owner of a node may be assigned to a particular activity that is related to a particular sales opportunity. As a result, the node should be provided with a copy of the object representing the sales opportunity.

FIG. 8 depicts the steps performed to synchronize a partially replicated database in response to a change in data visibility. Execution begins in step 241. In step 243, the Visibility Calculator references the visibility just calculated for a docking object. If the Docking Object is visible, execution proceeds to step 245. Step 245 references the S_DOBJ_INST table, to verify that a row exists for the Docking Object for the current node. If a row exists, this indicates that the node in question already has a copy of the referenced Docking Object, and the routine proceeds to step 255, where it exits. If, however, no row exists for the Docking Object at the node being processes, this indicates that the node in question does not have a copy of the Docking Object on its partially replicated database. The routine then proceeds to step 247, where a transaction is generated to direct the node to insert the Docking Object into its partially replicated database.

If step 243 determines that the Docking Object is not visible, execution proceeds to step 249. Step 249 references the S_DOBJ_INST table, to verify that no row exists for the Docking Object for the current node. If step 243 determines that no row exists in the S_DOBJ_INST table for the current docking object for the current row, this indicates that the node in question does not have a copy of the referenced Docking Object, and the routine proceeds to step 255, where it exits. If, however, a row exists for the Docking Object at the node being processed, this indicates that the node in question does have a copy of the Docking Object on its partially replicated database. The routine then proceeds to step 251, where a transaction is generated to direct the node to delete the Docking Object from its partially replicated database.

Referring again to FIG. 7, following the data synchronization routine of step 228, the Visibility Calculator proceeds to step 229, where it exits. Referring to FIG. 6, as previously described, the resulting finding of visibility is available to be checked by the log manager in step 183 to determine to write the transaction.

Referring again to FIG. 7, if step 211 determines that no records were returned by the execution of the SQL statement in step 209, execution proceeds with step 215. Step 215 checks to see whether there are any remaining visibility rules to be assessed. If not, the visibility calculator proceeds to step 228 to synchronize the database, and then to step 229, where it exits. In this case, the default mark of no visibility that was set in step 203 remains set. This value will also be used by the log manager as shown in FIG. 6, step 183, to determine not to write the transaction.

Referring again to FIG. 7, if rules remain to be assessed, control proceeds to step 217, which selects the next rule to be processed. Control is then given again to step 207 to begin processing the new rule.

The preceding text provided a description of the processing or SQL visibility rule; that is, visibility rules of type "R." If step 207 determines that the visibility rule is not of type "R," the visibility rule is of type "O." Type "O" indicates a docking-object visibility rule. In such a case, the docking object being processed will be considered to be visible if it is related to a particular related docking object that is visible. If field RULE_TYPE is not equal to "R," then. execution proceeds to step 221. Step 221 determines the related Docking Object whose visibility must be determined to determine whether the current docking object is visible. The related Docking Object identifier is obtained from field CHECK_DOBJ_ID in table S_DOBJ_VIS_RULE 71. In step 223, the Visibility Calculator determines which row in the related Docking Object must be queried for visibility. In order to determine this, the Visibility Calculator obtains a predetermined SQL statement from the field SQL_STATEMENT and executes it. The SQL statement is a query that select one or more rows of the Docking Object that, for example, correspond to the docking object for which the Visibility Calculator was invoked.

For example, assume that it is desired to indicate that a record for a sales opportunity should be visible if the Node has visibility to any sales quote made for that sales opportunity. This may be accomplished using the following SQL statement:

TABLE-US-00003 SELECT"_ID" FROM &Table_Owner.S_DOC_QUOTE WHERE OPTY_ID=:Primary RowId

This SQL statement accesses a table S_DOC_QUOTE that contains all sales quotes. The WHERE clause specifies retrieval of all rows where the Opportunity ID of the row is equal to the Row-ID of the opportunity for which visibility is being calculated. The Visibility manager retrieves the specified Row-Ids, thereby identifying the rows of the S_DOC_QUOTE table whose visibility must checked.

Having determined the a related docking object and the row-ID of that related docking object upon whose visibility the visibility of the current docking object depends, the Visibility Calculator proceeds to step 225. In step 225, the Visibility Calculator recursively invokes itself to determine visibility of the related docking object. The recursively invoked Visibility Calculator operates in the same manner as the Visibility Calculator as called from the Log Manager 9, including the capability to further recursively invoke itself. When the recursive call concludes, it returns a visibility indicator for the related Docking Object, and control