Type checking for safe interoperability among Web processes

• US 20040064529A1
• Filed: 01/07/2003
• Published: 04/01/2004
• Est. Priority Date: 09/30/2002
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (Microsoft Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
• Inventors: Richter, David, Bjorg, Steve, Meredith, L. Gregory
• Granted Patent: US 7,702,749 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 709/219
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 61/10 of different types
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/02 based on web technology, e.g. hypertext transfer protocol [HTTP]
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/06 specially adapted for file transfer, e.g. file transfer protocol [FTP]
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/10 in which an application is distributed across nodes in the network software deployment G06F8/60; multiprogramming arrangements G06F9/46
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/14 Session management for real-time applications in data packet communications networks H04L65/1066
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/51 Discovery or management thereof, e.g. service location protocol [SLP] or web services
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 69/12 Protocol engines
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 69/329 in the application layer [OSI layer 7]

Abstract

The joining of Web services is accomplished via a virtual contract through the use of safeties. The joining of Web services heightens the safe interoperability of Web services to create greater functionality than each Web service alone can provide. Web services are joined for interoperability when the type of a port of one Web service is compatible with the type of another port of another Web service.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method for checking the compatibility of a first porttype of a first Web service and a second porttype of the second Web service, the method comprising:

extracting a first safety (S1) from the first porttype of the first Web service and a second safety (S2) from the second porttype of the second Web service; and

testing the compatibility of the first safety with the second safety by binding the first safety with the second safety (S1;

=;

S2) to determine whether the result of the binding produces interoperability between Web services.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first Web service includes a first port of the first porttype and the second Web service includes a second port of the second porttype, the first port being fusable with the second port if the result of the binding produces safe interoperability between Web services.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first Web service includes a first port of the first porttype and the second Web service includes a second port of the second porttype, the first port being fusable with the second port if the result of the binding produces questionable interoperability and the first Web service and the second Web service tolerate the fusing of the first port and the second port.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is a stop safety (0) and the second safety is of the form (S), the result of the binding is the second safety.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is a sequence safety (M.S) and the second safety is a parallel safety (S₀|S₁), the result of the binding is a choice safety (((S₀/M)|S₁):

=;

S)+((S₀|(S₁/M));

=;

S).

6. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is a choice safety (S₀+S₁) and the second safety is of the form (S), the result of the binding is a choice safety ((S₀:

=;

S)+(S₁;

=;

S)).

7. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is of the form (M₀.S₀) and the second safety is of the form (M₁.S₁) and a match function (match(M₀, M₁)) is defined, the result of the binding is equated to a safety having the relationship (cut(M₀, M₁).(S₀:

=;

S₁)) or otherwise the result of the binding is undefined.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is a parallel safety (S₀|S₁) and the second safety is another parallel safety (S₂|S₃), the result of the binding is a choice safety ((S_0,2,3,1)+(S_1,2,3,0)+(S_2,0,1,3)+(S_3,0,1,2)).

9. The method of claim 8, wherein each choice in the choice safety ((S_0,2,3,1)+(S_1,2,3,0)+(S_2,0,1,3)+(S_3,0,1,2)) can be placed in a form (S_i,m,n,j), wherein if a relationship ((S_i:

=;

(S_m|S_n));

=;

S_j) is defined for a particular choice, the result of the binding is the relationship ((S_i;

=;

(S_m|S_n));

=;

S_j) or otherwise the result of the binding is another relationship ((S_i;

=;

(S_m|S_n))|S_j).

10. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is a recursion safety (rec(K).S₀) and the second safety is of the form (S), the result of the binding is a relationship (S₀{rec(K).S₀/K}:

=;

S).

11. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form (0/S₀), the result of the binding is undefined.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form (M₀.S/M₁) and a match function (match(M₀, M₁)) is defined, the result of the binding is equated to a cut function (cut(M₀, M₁)).

13. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form (M₀.S/M₁) and a match function (match(M₀, M₁)) is not defined, the result of the binding is undefined.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form ((S₀+S₁)/M), the result of the binding is equated to a choice safety ((S₀/M)+(S₁/M)).

15. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form ((S₀|S₁)/M), the result of the binding is equated to a menu safety ((S₀/M)|S₁)+(S₀|(S₁/M)).

16. The method of claim 1, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form (rec(K).S/M), the result of the binding is equated to a recursion safety S{rec(K).(S/K)}/M.

17. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for performing a method for for checking the compatibility of a first porttype of a first Web service and a second porttype of the second Web service, the method comprising:

extracting a first safety (S1) from the first porttype of the first Web service and a second safety (S2) from the second porttype of the second Web service; and

testing the compatibility of the first safety with the second safety by binding the first safety with the second safety (S1;

=;

S2) to determine whether the result of the binding produces interoperability between Web services.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein the first Web service includes a first port of the first porttype and the second Web service includes a second port of the second porttype, the first port being fusable with the second port if the result of the binding produces safe interoperability between Web services.

19. The method of claim 17, wherein the first Web service includes a first port of the first porttype and the second Web service includes a second port of the second porttype, the first port being fusable with the second port if the result of the binding produces questionable interoperability and the first Web service and the second Web service tolerate the fusing of the first port and the second port.

20. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is a stop safety (0) and the second safety is of the form (S), the result of the binding is the second safety.

21. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is a sequence safety (M.S) and the second safety is a parallel safety (S₀|S₁), the result of the binding is a choice safety (((S₀/M)|S₁):

=;

S)+((S₀|(S₁/M));

=;

S).

22. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is a choice safety (S₀+S₁) and the second safety is of the form (S), the result of the binding is a choice safety ((S₀:

=;

S)+(S₁;

=;

S)).

23. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is of the form (M₀.S₀) and the second safety is of the form (M₁.S₁) and a match function (match(M₀, M₁)) is defined, the result of the binding is equated to a safety having the relationship (cut(M₀, M₁).(S₀:

=;

S₁)) or otherwise the result of the binding is undefined.

24. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is a parallel safety (S₀|S₁) and the second safety is another parallel safety (S₂|S₃), the result of the binding is a choice safety ((S_0,2,3,1)+(S_1,2,3,0)+(S_2,0,1,3)+(S_3,0,1,2)).

25. The method of claim 24, wherein each choice in the choice safety ((S_0,2,3,1)+(S_1,2,3,0)+(S_2,0,1,3)+(S_3,0,1,2)) can be placed in a form (S_i,m,n,j), wherein if a relationship ((S_i:

=;

(S_m|S_n));

=;

S_j) is defined for a particular choice, the result of the binding is the relationship ((S_i;

=;

(S_m|S_n));

=;

S_j) or otherwise the result of the binding is another relationship ((S_i;

=;

(S_m|S_n))|S_j).

26. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is a recursion safety (rec(K).S₀) and the second safety is of the form (S), the result of the binding is a relationship (S₀{rec(K).S₀/K}:

=;

S).

27. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form (0/S₀), the result of the binding is undefined.

28. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form (M₀.S/M₁) and a match function (match(M₀, M₁)) is defined, the result of the binding is equated to a cut function (cut(M₀, M₁)).

29. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form (M₀.S/M₁) and a match function (match(M₀, M₁)) is not defined, the result of the binding is undefined.

30. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form ((S₀+S₁)/M), the result of the binding is equated to a choice safety ((S₀/M)+(S₁/M)).

31. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form ((S₀|S₁)/M), the result of the binding is equated to a menu safety ((S₀/M)|S₁)+(S₀|(S₁/M)).

32. The method of claim 17, wherein if the first safety is of the form (S) and the second safety is of the form (rec(K).S/M), the result of the binding is equated to a recursion safety S{rec(K).(S/K)}/M.