AUTOMATED CODE-GENERATION FOR CROSS-LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT, TESTING, AND INTEGRATION

• US 20160124731A1
• Filed: 10/28/2015
• Published: 05/05/2016
• Est. Priority Date: 10/31/2014
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Incorporated (BAE Systems Plc)
• Original Assignee: BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Incorporated (BAE Systems Plc)
• Inventors: HILL, Edward H. III
• Granted Patent: US 9,778,922 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/31 Programming languages or programming paradigms
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/47 Retargetable compilers
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/51 Source to source

Abstract

A system and method provide for easy sharing of data between different software languages. A method begins by creating a definition defining a data structure with a domain specific language. The definition is then input to a code generator which generates data structures and algorithms in a first software language. The same generator software also creates equivalent data structures and algorithms in a second software language that is different than the first software language. The two output implementations provide compatible utilities for marshalling and de-marshalling data back and forth between the first software language and the second software language without requiring further manipulation of the two implementations.

Claims

1. A method comprising:

defining a data structure with a software metalanguage;

using the software metalanguage to generate the data structure in a first software language as a first container, wherein the first software language is an implementation of a first software general-purpose language (GPL); and

using the same software metalanguage to generate the same data structure as a second container in a second software language, wherein the second software language is an implementation of a second software GPL that is different than the first software GPL.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising:

using the same software metalanguage to generate utilities in the first software language and to generate utilities in the second software language.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein the utilities further comprise:

a marshalling utility in the first software language configured to marshal data between the first container of the first software language and the second container of the second software language; and

a de-marshalling utility in the second software language configured to de-marshal data and input de-marshalled data into the second software language.

4. The method of claim 3 further comprising:

using the marshalling utility and de-marshalling utility to marshal data from the first software language to the second software language.

5. The method of claim 3 wherein marshalled data does not need transformed between when the marshalled data is marshalled with the first software language and when the marshalled data is de-marshalled with the second software language.

6. The method of claim 1 further comprising:

capturing simulation data representing the state of a simulation test in the first software language at a point in time;

marshalling the simulation data to the second software language to create marshalled simulation data;

de-marshalling and inputting the simulation data into the second software language; and

viewing a state of the second software language at the point in time.

7. The method of claim 6 further comprising:

running the simulation test from the point in time in the second software language to a second different point in time.

8. The method of claim 6 wherein the simulation data does not need modified after creating marshalled simulation data with the first software language and before unmarshalling the simulation data at the second software language.

9. The method of claim 6 wherein the marshalling further comprises:

marshalling the simulation data into a compacted binary format.

10. The method of claim 1 wherein the metalanguage is JavaScript Object Notation (JSON).

11. The method of claim 1 wherein the first data container includes classes comprised of one or more of the group of:

signed integers, unsigned integers, float values, double float values, complex float values, complex double float values, Booleans, strings, dynamic-sized ordered arrays of primitive types, code-generated types, dynamically-sized ordered arrays, associative arrays, fixed-length arrays, and graphs.

12. The method of claim 1 wherein the first software GPL is one of the group of:

C, C++, MatLAB, Java, Python, Octave, CUDA, and Octave.

13. The method of claim 1 wherein the defining a data structure further comprises:

defining a data structure that has multiple levels of hierarchy.

14. A system comprising:

a data structure generation logic configured to allow a user to define a data structure; and

a code generation logic configured to convert the data structure to a first container of a first software language, and wherein the code generation logic is configured to convert the data structure to a second container of a second software language that is different than the first software language, wherein the first software language is an implementation within a first software general-purpose language (GPL), wherein the second software language is an implementation within a second software GPL, and wherein the first software GPL is different than the second software GPL.

15. The system of claim 14 wherein the data structure generation logic further comprises:

a software metalanguage configures to allow the user to define at least a portion of the data structure.

16. The system of claim 15 further wherein the software metalanguage is JavaScrip Object Notation (JSON).

17. The system of claim 14 wherein the code generation logic further comprises:

marshalling logic configured to generate marshalling utilities in the first software language configured to be used to capture state and data values of the first software language at a point in time; and

de-marshalling logic configured to generate de-marshalling utilities in the second software language configured to be used to input the state and data values of the first software language into the second software language allowing the second software language to be run from the point in time.

18. The system of claim 17 wherein the state and data values are unmodified between the marshalling utilities and the de-marshalling utilities:

19. The system of claim 14 further wherein the data structure has a plurality of levels of hierarchy.

20. The system of claim 14 wherein the first software GPL and the second software GPL are each a different one of the group of:

C, C++, MatLAB, Java, Python, Octave, CUDA, and Octave.