CA2328566A1 - System and method for providing language-specific extensions to the compare facility in an edit system - Google Patents
System and method for providing language-specific extensions to the compare facility in an edit system Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CA2328566A1 CA2328566A1 CA002328566A CA2328566A CA2328566A1 CA 2328566 A1 CA2328566 A1 CA 2328566A1 CA 002328566 A CA002328566 A CA 002328566A CA 2328566 A CA2328566 A CA 2328566A CA 2328566 A1 CA2328566 A1 CA 2328566A1
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- compare
- strategy
- extensions
- comparing
- parser
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F40/00—Handling natural language data
- G06F40/10—Text processing
- G06F40/166—Editing, e.g. inserting or deleting
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F40/00—Handling natural language data
- G06F40/20—Natural language analysis
- G06F40/205—Parsing
- G06F40/211—Syntactic parsing, e.g. based on context-free grammar [CFG] or unification grammars
Abstract
An extension of any n-file compare and/or merge utility in an edit system includes services provided by a parser attached to the edit system for the particular file type. A
compare command in the edit system is enabled by an extension-registration process to query, upon activation, for any compare extensions supported by the parser.
Selected files are displayed to a user with non-comparing elements highlighted according to a compare strategy selected with reference to the compare extensions.
compare command in the edit system is enabled by an extension-registration process to query, upon activation, for any compare extensions supported by the parser.
Selected files are displayed to a user with non-comparing elements highlighted according to a compare strategy selected with reference to the compare extensions.
Description
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING
LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC EXTENSIONS TO THE COMPARE FACILITY
IN AN EDIT SYSTEM
Background of the Invention Technical Field of the Invention This invention pertains to editing systems. More particularly, it relates to language-specific extensions to the compare facility in an editing system.
Background Art Regular file compare, carried out by a straightforward comparison of the text elements of a number of files, is not adequate for logical, effective comparison of source files in a manner that will improve the productivity of programmers and assist them during their various code development and code maintenance tasks.
In addition to the options normally provided by compare facilities (e.g., ignore blanks, ignore case), there is a need in the art for a system and method providing language specific requirements.
It is, therefore, an object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing source files code while ignoring the comments.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing functions and/or methods defined in source files (names, arguments, etc.), regardless of their detailed implementation.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing code while ignoring the text located outside margins, in a prefix area, and/or including or excluding sequence numbers, and so forth.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing source code statement-by-statement, e.g., one-line statement vs. a reformatted statement spread over a number of document lines, effectively ignoring the differences in formatting styles between programmers or coding standards and practices between projects or institutions.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing constant definitions or keys in, for example, Java resource files, where the values are different (e.g., new constant values or NLS-translated values), in which case the user may still be interested in an indication that the value changed, but does not want to have every line flagged as non-comparing.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing documents with expected (controlled) differences, such as the change of a class name or a variable name.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method facilitating language-sensitive application of compare options (e.g., ignore case and ignore blanks applied only to language elements and comments, but not to contents of strings).
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing documents in any manner that is advantageous for a specific type of filed handled by the edit system.
Summary of the Invention In accordance with the invention, a system and method for the extension of any n-file compare and/or merge utility in an edit system includes services provided by a parser attached to the edit system for the particular file type. A compare command in the edit system is enabled by an extension-registration process to query, upon activation, for any compare extensions supported by the parser.
In accordance with an aspect of the invention, there is provided a computer program product configured to be operable to extend any n-file compare and/or merge utility in an edit system by providing services particular to a specific file type within a parser attached to the edit system for that particular file type.
Other features and advantages of this invention will become apparent from the following detailed description ofthe presently preferred embodiment ofthe invention, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
Brief Description of the Drawings Figure 1 illustrates a typical pull-down menu for the compare function in an edit system.
Figure 2 illustrates the main components of an edit system in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention.
Figures 3-6 are flow diagrams illustrating the steps of the preferred embodiment of the invention for invoking a compare utility.
Figure 7 illustrates an aspect of the registration of compare extensions.
Figure 8 illustrates a pull-down menu for the compare function in an edit system including, for example, two extended compare options.
Figure 9 illustrates components of an edit system implementing the two extended compare options of Figure 8.
Figure 10 is a screen capture illustration of a regular compare of two C-language documents.
Figure 11 is a screen capture illustration of a compare of the two C-language documents of Figure 10 according to the present invention.
Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention In accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention, the compare command in an edit system is enabled by an extension-registration process to query, upon activation, for any compare extensions supported by the parser attached to the edit system for the currently active files participating in the compare. This allows the parser to add its own compare options, specific to the file type it handles.
In this manner, the compare utility is able to smartly handle differences in content based on the internal structure of the documents, as this is recognized by the parser.
Furthermore, the compare utility can in this manner be customized based on the individual parsers abilities, but still in a consistent manner within the edit system.
When these extension options are selected by a user, the parser is invoked to provide one or more specific methods extending those used by the compare utility, such as supplying the (modified) content of the document text (for example, with the comments stripped out, or reformatted to include an entire language statement).
Compare Utility Options Referring to Figure 1, a typical pull-down menu 100 for the compare function in an edit system is illustrated.
Menu items 104-108 and 118-122 represent compare utility actions which work in the same manner regardless of the language context of the documents being compared.
Refresh 104 refreshes compare after any of the compared documents has been modified. This action 104 redoes the latest compare operation, with the same settings, options, and on the same documents, after the contents of any one or more of these documents has been modified.
Next mismatch 106 results in advancing the cursor to the next mismatch.
Previous mismatch 108 positions the cursor onto the previous mismatch.
Protect view 118 protects the view from editing. If the particular implementation of the compare utility displays n views side-by-side of the documents being compared, this menu action 118 applies to the currently-active view (the one with the focus).
If the compare utility shows a composite view of the main document compared to a file or files, then this action prevents the main document from being edited.
Show mismatches only 120 results in displaying only the mismatches.
Exit compare 122 exits the compare utility/mode. If the compare utility displays n views side-by-side of the documents being compared, these views are terminated and disposed. If the compare utility shows a composite view of the main document and the differences to the other documents, then all parser classes, highlights, and other compare-related pertinent information are cleared in this main document view.
Menu items 110-116 are compare options (or equivalently, settings in a Preferences dialog) which may be affected by the type of the compared documents, or that language-specific compare extensions may have to alter. These options 110-116 form part of the compare strategy.
Selection of ignore leading blanks 110 results in leading blanks/white space being removed from text during the comparison.
Ignore trailing blanks 112 results in trailing blanks being removed from text during the comparison.
Ignore all blanks 114 results in all blanks being removed from text during the comparison.
Ignore case 116 results in text being folded to lower/upper case during the comparison.
In accordance with an embodiment of the invention, the parser is able to override any of these compare options 110-116. For example, for ignore all blanks 114, blanks that form part of a C / C++ / Java language string should not be ignored: "ABC" is very different from "A B C". In accordance with this aspect of the invention, such new compare options are also added by the parsers.
Edit System Referring to Figure 2, the main components of a typical edit system 140 are illustrated, and will be described with particular reference to an embodiment of the system of the invention. Each block shown in edit system 140 represents one or more classes and comprise functions performed by the code in edit system 140, as well as data structures maintained for the documents being edited.
Document class 144 manages one document in the edit system: either a file loaded in the edit system, or a newly-created document. One or more documents 144 may be opened in an edit system session.
View class 146 manages a document view in the edit system 140. There may be several views on the same document open simultaneously in the edit system.
Screen class 148 handles the screen, i.e., the display of the edit window. It manages the display attributes of the rendered elements as set up in view 146 by the edit system and its attached tools - tokenization and colorization of the text as set up by the parsers and other utilities (e.g., the differences marked up by the compare utility in the edit system), the text selection in effect, etc. There is one instance of this class 148 for every document View 146.
Element class 150 manages each text line of document 144. It contains the text of the corresponding line in the document. In addition, show elements may be set in the edit system, which are lines of text displayed in the view of the document but which do not form part of it, and consequently are not saved when the document being edited is saved (e.g., imbedded error messages set up by a build utility, or differences shown by the compare utility). A linked list of elements 150 is maintained for each document 144 in edit system 140.
ElementView class 152 manages the view for one element 150. For each view 146 opened on document 144, and ElementView class 152 corresponding to each element 150 is instantiated. It keeps track of the parser classes and token styles assigned by the language parsers) and other associated utilities in the view 146, and also contains formatting flags and display attributes.
Parameter class 154 manages a setting of the edit system 140, and provides means for querying and setting of its install, default, and current values, according to its defined scope in the edit system. All the edit system settings are managed by classes extending parameter 154 for the handling of a particular setting.
Action class 156 manages one named action in the edit system.
Command class 158 manages one named command and its arguments.
Compare class 160 in edit system 140 handles the compare command itself and its arguments, and manages the registration and activation of compare extensions 168.
CompareStrategy class 162 provides a set of functions used for a compare operation. A linked list of CompareStrategies is maintained for each active compare session 160.
CommonParser class 164, from which the language parsers derive, implements a set of generic parser services and provides a parser interface to the edit system 140.
Parser class 166 is an edit-system extension which provides document-specific editing functionality.
Compare extension 168 provides document-specific extensions to the Compare utility.
Activities in edit system 140 are triggered by actions and commands. The edit system has a set of built-in (predefined) actions and commands. The system can be customized with user-defined actions and commands, which are new or override built-in (default) actions or commands. Actions can be associated with keys and menus (pull-down, toolbar, pop-up). For example, the "open" action, associated with the key combination "Ctrl+O" and the "Open..." item on the "File" pull-down menu, brings up the Open dialog, allowing the user to choose a file to be opened as a document 144 in edit system 140.
Language Parsers In accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention, compare utility is extendible through parser interfaces 165.
A language-specific parser 166 is an extension to the edit system 140 which provides a variety of functions which assist users of edit system 140 with their editing tasks.
A typical language parser 166 in an edit system 140 reads and analyzes (parses) document 144 contents according to its type; maintains this document information up-to-date throughout its editing; provides token colorization; provides a content-outline of the document; provides code-assist functions; provides automatic formatting of the user input (such as cursor-positioning and text-positioning indentation); provides navigation between classes and tokens, i.e., smart navigation between structural elements of document 144 as identified in a particular view 146 on the document; and provides language-sensitive help on the contents of the document.
Language-specific parsers 166 are attached to the edit system 140 via a file-type association mechanism. For example, the JavaParser class 166 is loaded when a Java source file (*.java or *.jav) is opened in the edit system. A parser 166 first gets control after a file has been loaded in the edit system (to perform an initial total parse), and subsequently it is called following certain edit system events, such as changes made to the document (incremental parse).
Parser 166 analyzes the document, and marks structural elements in it at various degrees of detail. Parser classes are defined for a view 146, that broadly classify element types in the view. Each element 150 can belong to one or more parser classes.
For example, text elements 150 which contain comments are marked with parser class CLASS COMMENT, C-language function header elements with CLASS_FUNCTION, Java-language method signature elements with CLASS_METHOD, etc. Additional classes may be defined by a parser to link consecutive elements that belong to the same language construct (CLASS_FORWARDLINK, CLASS_BACKWARDLINK), to indicate if a text element is empty (CLASS SPACE), and so on.
More detailed information is recorded by parser 166 via token styles set in the element view 152 for a text element 150. The token style characters identify all the text characters in an element 150, and permit association of the text with display attributes (e.g., an italicized, green-color display and print font style for the comment characters in the element, i.e., those text characters assigned the comment token style).
1 S The set of parsing functions described above is usually implemented on top of any available grammar-parser utility, adapted for use in an edit system and further expanded to support these functions.
The parser-set information is used by the edit system 140 to display the document 144 in a view 146 (colorized, filtered sections of the source, a bounded segment of the source, etc.), by other utilities and tools attached to the edit system to get detailed information about the structure of the document 144 for carrying out context-sensitive actions, and by the parser 166 itself as reference points for incremental parsing and for its other language-specific operations.
Compare Process Table 1 represents how the compare process in a typical compare utility 160 works.
Lines 1 - 9 indicate the typical settings and functions which may be modified by compare extensions 168. This set of functions is, according to the present invention, defined as a compare strategy. Alternative embodiments of the invention may include additional or other such settings and functions than those indicated here. Compare extensions 168 will modify one or more of these settings and functions in a compare strategy, and consequently modify the compare process for a particular compare operation.
TABLE 1: COMPARE PROCESS
for each document view participating in compare /l build vector of hash values for elements' text for all text elements in document view text := elementText(element) 1 if ignoreCase 2 text := IowerCase(text) 3 if ignoreLeadingBlanks 4 text := stripLeadingBlanks(text) 5 if ignoreTrailingBlanks 6 text := stripTrailingBlanks(text) 7 if ignoreAlIBlanks 8 text := stripAlIBlanks(text) 9 hashValues[element number] := hash(text) elements[element number] :-- element compare the hash-values vectors, determine largest blocks that compare, mark elements in the document views) accordingly, set up compare bars to visually summarize differences and link comparing blocks.
Referring to Table 2, the compare process, as implemented in compare utility according to this invention, will be the same for all compare strategies 162.
TABLE 2: COMPARE PROCESS FOR ALL COMPARE STRATEGIES
for each document view participating in compare /l build vector of hash values for elements' text strategy := instance of selected compare strategy for view for all text elements in document view text := strategy.elementText(element) 1 if strategy.ignoreCase() 2 text := strategy.ignoreCase(text) 3 if strategy.ignoreLeadingBlanksQ 4 text := strategy.ignoreLeadingBlanks(text) 5 if strategy.ignoreTrailingBlanksQ 6 text := strategy.ignoreTrailingBlanks(text) 7 if strategy.ignoreAlIBIanksQ 8 text := strategy.ignoreAlIBlanks(text) 9 hashValues[element number] := hash(text) elements[element number] := element compare the hash-values vectors, determine largest blocks that compare, mark elements in the document views) accordingly, set up compare bars to visually summarize differences and link comparing blocks.
Invocation of the Compare Utility Referring to Figures 3-6, when in step 170 the default "compare" action 160 is invoked in the edit system 140, in step 172 a compare dialog is displayed, which allows the user in step 174 to select the compare entities; for example, the existing document views 146 to compare or, depending on the edit system implementation, to select the files) with which to compare the currently active document view 146, for which files() document views) are instantiated in step 176.
Once the selected compare views 146 are determined (and optionally created for the selected files) not currently opened in the edit system), compare utility 160 can in step 178 establish whether the attached parsers 164 and 166 are identical, and consequently is able in step 180 to initiate the compare-extension 168 registration process. Depending on the desired embodiment, in step 180 the compare-extension 168 registration may now be invoked, and in step 182 the user is presented another dialog with the new compare options registered to select the desired option. Alternatively, the compare can proceed in step 190 with the default compare action in accordance with the default options in effect;
subsequently, the user can in step 192 select the compare menu pull-down, whose creation in step 194 will trigger in steps 178 and 180 the registration process, and in steps 182 and 196 the compare menu will be populated with the additional compare options registered for execution in steps 184 and 188.
Referring to Figure 6, other "compare" actions 200 can be defined programmatically in the edit system 140, which will invoke in steps 202 and 204 the compare utility 160 directly with a certain compare-extension strategy.
Registration of compare extensions Referring to Figure 7, compare utility 160 calls the parser 166 to register any compare-extensions 168 whenever all the documents 144 participating in the compare/merge have the same parser 166. Similarly, this is done for extensions registered by parsers extending the same base parser 166. For example, parsers for various flavors of the C language for different platforms (such as Windows, AIX, and OS2), all extend a base C-language parser 210. As a consequence, documents 144 handled by any combination of these parsers 212-224 can participate in the compare extensions 168 registered by the basic CParser 210.
The registration process is initiated by the Compare utility 160 calling a CommonParser 164 entry point registerCompareExtensions() to allow the parser for the document view 146 to register its compare strategies 162, if any, such as a parser default strategy and/or additional strategies for extra compare options. This is accomplished by the parser 166, which extends CommonParser 164 and overrides registerCompareExtensionsQ if it has any compare extensions 168 to register, to call in turn the Compare utility 160 entry point registerStrategy() for each compare extension 168 it wants to register.
The Compare class 160 adds each compare strategy 162 indicated via the registerStrategy() calls to its linked list of strategies forthe current compare session. When it is returned control from registerCompareExtensionsQ, it is able to go through the compareStrategiesList just created, and query each registered strategy for the compare option to display to the user, and create an edit-system action for each such option (e.g., menu item, checkbox, etc.).
When the user selects a particular compare option, the defined action is run, which in turn calls the compare process 160 with the associated compare strategy 162.
Compare Strategy Each compare extension 168 implements a compare strategy, i.e., implements the compare-utility callback extendible methods, which either override, or extend compare-utility 160 methods, or call super() (the parent-class method) to effectively change nothing in the Compare utility default strategy (when the method is not altered by the particular compare extension 168).
Through this method-extension mechanism, various other compare details may be implicitly modified as pertinent to the option selected (e.g., turning on by default the "ignore blanks" setting, so as to ignore any blanks outside the language constructs when ignoring comments in the comparison).
Table 3 illustrates a typical base CompareStrategy class as implemented in the compare utility 160 of edit system 140. It defines the default compare strategy 162 for the basic compare options defined in the edit system.
TABLE 3: COMPARE
CompareStrategy /**
* This class consists of methods for a compare-command action * The implementation of this class provides the default strategy * for a compare action.
* Parsers may extend this class to override or extend methods, * in order to create their default strategy, or a compare strategy * for a language-specific compare extension.
*/
public class CompareStrategy /l keep a reference to the compare view using this strategy protected View view;
/i'*
* Constructor for this compare strategy.
* It instantiates the strategy for a particular compare view.
*/
public CompareStrategy(View view) f yew = mew;
3 0 /**
* Retrieve the compare view of this strategy instance.
*/
public View view() return view;
/i'*
* Retrieve the name of the compare option implemented through this * strategy.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * does nothing, except return null. The parser implementing a * particular strategy for a compare option should override this * method to return a string suitable for display as a compare-option * menu item.
*/
public String compareOptionNameQ
return null;
/**
* Query whether differences in the character case of the compared text * are significant.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the currently effective setting of the "compare.ignoreCase"
* edit-system parameter for this compare view.
*/
public boolean ignoreCase() is f return Compare.ignoreCaseParameter().currentValue(_view);
/~'*
* Return a case-neutral variation of the text passed in.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the lower-case version of the entire submitted string.
*/
public String ignoreCase(String text) return IowerCase(text);
* Query whether the compare operation should ignore leading blanks in * the compared text.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the current setting of the "compare.ignoreLeading8lanks"
* edit-system parameter for this compare view.
*/
public boolean ignoreLeadingBlanks() return Compare.ignoreLeadingBlanksParameter().currentValue(_view);
}
/'**
* Return a no-leading-blanks variation of the text passed in.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the submitted text with any leading white space stripped.
*/
public String ignoreLeadingBlanks(String text) return stripLeadingBlanks(text);
/**
* Query whether the compare operation should ignore trailing blanks * in the compared text.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the current setting of the "compare.ignoreTrailing8lanks"
* edit-system parameter for this compare view.
*/
public boolean ignoreTrailingBlanks() return Compare.ignoreTrailingBlanksParameter().currentValue( view);
/**
* Return a no-trailing-blanks variation of the text passed in.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the submitted text with any trailing white space stripped.
*/
public String ignoreTrailingBlanks(String text) return stripTrailingBlanks(text);
/**
* Query whether the compare operation should ignore blank characters * (white space) in the compared text.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the current setting of the "compare.ignoreAllBlanks"
* edit-system parameter for this compare view.
*/
public boolean ignoreAIIBlanks() return Compare.ignoreAlIBIanksParameter().currentValue(_view);
* Return a no-blanks variation of the text passed in.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * refurns the submitted text with any white space stripped.
*/
public String ignoreAIIBlanks(String text) {
return stripAIIBlanks(text);
/**
* Retrieve the text of an element in the document, which will be used * in the compare process.
* The parser implementing a particular compare strategy may override * this method to return an altered string of the actual text element * content (e.g., with the comments stripped for an "Ignore comments"
* compare option).
*/
public String elementText(int element) /l retrieve element Element a = view.elementAt(element);
/l valid element - return its text if (e != null) {
return e.text();
}
//element not available - return null else {
return null;
Compare Extension Compare utility 160 loads and invokes the particular parser class when the user selects an extension option. The compare utility then runs in the usual manner, however certain of its methods are now handled by the parser 166 for the particular type of document and compare option.
Compare strategies can be implemented either in the parser 166 itself, or in the common parser 164 for more generic compare options (such as "Ignore comments"), with the language-specific methods further implemented in the language parsers 166.
Referring to Figure 8, there are two extensions 132, 134 provided to the edit system compare utility for C documents. The C language parser 166, in conjunction with the Common Parser 164, effectively implements both these CompareStrategy extensions, overriding or extending one or more methods in the default CompareStrategy class, for the compare options "Ignore comments" 132 and "Compare functions only" 134. Figure illustrates the modified Compare menu pull-down of Figure 1 after the addition of these two extensions 168.
The two additional compare options 132, 134 are added to the compare menu 130 during the compare-extension registration process.
Referring to Figure 9, a preferred implementation of the edit system of these two compare extensions 132, 134 is illustrated. In this example, common parser 230 corresponds to common parser 164, and includes the compare strategy 162 for option "Ignore comments" CompareStrategylgnoreComments 232, and procedure elementsTextNoCommentsQ 234. C parser 210 corresponds to parser 166, and includes procedure elementTextNoComments() 236 which overrides procedure elementTextNoComments() 234 in the common parser 230, procedure elementCode() 238, and compare strategy 162 for option "Compare functions only"
CompareStrategyFunctions 240.
The methods not implemented in the extension strategy classes below will activate, when invoked during the comparison, the original methods in the base CompareStrategy class (the default compare strategy 162 is illustrated in Table 3):
TABLE 4: COMPARE EXTENSION
COMMON PARSER:
CompareStrategylgnoreComments /**
* This compare strategy consists of methods for the compare-command * "Ignore comments" action. It extends the default Compare strategy.
* Only methods that are different from the default CompareStrategy are * implemented in here.
* This compare extension is registered with Compare for all parsers that * support stripping of comments from the element text.
*/
public class CompareStrategylgnoreComments extends CompareStrategy f /**
* Invoke the constructor of the default compare strategy.
*/
public CompareStrategylgnoreComments(View view) super(view);
/**
* Return the name of the compare option implemented through this * strategy.
*/
public String compareOptionNameQ
f return "Ignore comments";
}
/**
* Indicate that the compare operation should ignore blank characters * (white space) in the compared text.
* Once comments are stripped from the element text, it's important * to ignore the left-over blank characters, regardless of the manner * in which the parser removes the comments.
*/
public boolean ignoreAlIBIanksQ
{
return true;
/**
* Retrieve the text of an element in the document, which will be used * in the compare process. All the comments are stripped.
*/
public String elementText(int element) // invoke the call-back (hook) which the parser extends in order to // carry out the actual comment-removal return elementTextNoComments(element);
}
}
elementTextNoComments(element) /**
* This method is part of the Common Parser interface.
* A parser may override this method to return the text of an element * with the comments stripped out.
* The implementation of this method in the Common Parser returns the * complete text ('as is') of the element.
* @param element - element in the document */
String elementTextNoComments(int element) return view.elementText(element);
}
C PARSER:
CompareStrategyFunctions /**
* This compare strategy consists of methods for the compare-command * "Compare functions only" action. It extends the default Compare * strategy. Only methods that are different from the default * CompareStrategy are implemented in here.
*/
public class CompareStrategyFunctions extends CompareStrategy /**
* Invoke the constructor of the default compare strategy.
*/
public CompareStrategyFunctions(View view) super(view);
/**
* Return the name of the compare option implemented through this * strategy.
*/
public String compareOptionName() return "Compare functions only";
}
/**
* Retrieve the text of an element in the document, which will be used * in the compare process. Only function-header elements are returned;
* no other elements participate in the compare process.
*/
public String elementText(int element) if (element > 0) ~
// check that the parser has set the CLASS_FUNCTION
// parser class for this element if ((view.elementClasses(element) & classFunction) != 0) ~
// if function header, return element's text return view.elementText(element);
}
// not a function-header element return null;
}
elementTextNoComments(element) /**
* Retrieve the text of a document's element without the comments.
* Overrides the generic call-back method defined in Common Parser.
* @param element - element in the document */
String elementTextNoComments(int element) if (element > 0) ~
return elementCode(element); // see method below }
else {
return null;
elementCode(element) /**
* Retrieve the code (comments stripped) of an element.
* The comment characters, established as such by the parser, are * blanked out in the returned string.
* For example, for this line of C code:
* int i = 10 /* a reasonable constant */ + j; // init. i * the parser will have set this style string:
* Kkk_I_O_Nn_Ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc_O_IP_Cccccccccc * and this method will return the string below:
* inti=10 +j;
* An alternative implementation of this method could strip, rather * replace with blanks, the comment characters, returning:
* inti=10 +j;
* @param element - element in the document */
String elementCode(int element) f // style characters used by the parser to mark comments String commentStyles = "Cc";
// retrieve this element's style string String style = view.elementStyle(element);
// retrieve this element's text StringBuffer code = new StringBuffer(view.elementText(element));
// establish the valid range of the element text/style to process int i = style.length();
if (code.lengthQ < i) {
i = code.length();
}
// blank out all comment characters in the element's text while (--i >= 0) f if (commentStyles.indexOf(style charAt(i)) >= 0) {
code.setCharAt(i, ' ');
}
// return resulting string return code.toStringQ;
}
EXAMPLE
Referring to Figures 10 and 11, an example illustrating comparisons of two C-language documents is shown. As illustrated in Figure 10, the differences between the two documents 250 and 252 consist of one actual code change at 254, and a series of documentation (comments) changes at 256, 258 and 260. As illustrated in Figure 11, when the menu option "Ignore comments" 132 is selected, the compare only highlights the actual code changes at 254, clearing in Figure 11 the cluttered display of Figure 10 from all the compare information 256, 258, 260 which is not pertinent. The compare extension 168 in this case is implemented in the C parser 210, an embodiment of parser 166. C
parser 210 strips the comments (all text identified by the COMMENT class and comment style characters in the total and incremental parse operations) when supplying the text to the compare utility 160. As a result, the line-by-line comparison taking place after the hash operation will see these lines as effectively identical.
The user may be optionally informed of further differences existing between the compared documents, beyond the ones highlighted, through various means, such as (1 ) a message on the status line; or (2) keeping all the differences present in the compare bars 262 located between the edit views 250, 252. This option can be implemented by carrying out the compare procedure for the compare bars 262 between the views using the default compare strategy (or the parser default strategy, or a variation of it), and for the highlights 254 inside the views using the compare extension's registered strategy. Or, (3) other similar means, depending on the particular implementation.
Advantages over the Prior Art It is, therefore, an advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing source files code while ignoring the comments.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing functions and/or methods defined in source files (names, arguments, etc.), regardless of their detailed implementation.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing code while ignoring the text located outside margins, in a prefix area, and/or including or excluding sequence numbers, and so forth.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing source code statement-by-statement, e.g., one-line statement vs.
a reformatted statement spread over a number of document lines, effectively ignoring the differences in formatting styles between programmers or coding standards and practices between projects or institutions.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing constant definitions or keys in, for example, Java resource files, where the values are different (e.g., new constant values or NLS-translated values), in which case the user may still be interested in an indication that the value changed, but does not want to have every line flagged as non-comparing.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing documents with expected (controlled) differences, such as the change of a class name or a variable name.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method facilitating language-sensitive application of compare options (e.g., ignore case and ignore blanks applied only to language elements and comments, but not to contents of strings).
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing documents in any manner that is advantageous for a specific type of filed handled by the edit system.
Alternative Embodiments It will be appreciated that, although specific embodiments of the invention have been described herein for purposes of illustration, various modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. In particular, it is within the scope of the invention to provide a computer program product or program element, or a program storage or memory device such as a solid or fluid transmission medium, magnetic or optical wire, tape or disc, or the like, for storing signals readable by a machine, for controlling the operation of a computer according to the method of the invention and/or to structure its components in accordance with the system of the invention.
Further, each step of the method may be executed on any general computer, such as an IBM System 390, AS/400, PC or the like and pursuant to one or more, or a part of one or more, program elements, modules or objects generated from any programming language, such as C++, Java, PI/1 or the tike. And still further, each said step, or a file or object or the like implementing each said step, may be executed by special purpose hardware or a circuit module designed for that purpose.
Accordingly, the scope of protection of this invention is limited only by the following claims and their equivalents.
LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC EXTENSIONS TO THE COMPARE FACILITY
IN AN EDIT SYSTEM
Background of the Invention Technical Field of the Invention This invention pertains to editing systems. More particularly, it relates to language-specific extensions to the compare facility in an editing system.
Background Art Regular file compare, carried out by a straightforward comparison of the text elements of a number of files, is not adequate for logical, effective comparison of source files in a manner that will improve the productivity of programmers and assist them during their various code development and code maintenance tasks.
In addition to the options normally provided by compare facilities (e.g., ignore blanks, ignore case), there is a need in the art for a system and method providing language specific requirements.
It is, therefore, an object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing source files code while ignoring the comments.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing functions and/or methods defined in source files (names, arguments, etc.), regardless of their detailed implementation.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing code while ignoring the text located outside margins, in a prefix area, and/or including or excluding sequence numbers, and so forth.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing source code statement-by-statement, e.g., one-line statement vs. a reformatted statement spread over a number of document lines, effectively ignoring the differences in formatting styles between programmers or coding standards and practices between projects or institutions.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing constant definitions or keys in, for example, Java resource files, where the values are different (e.g., new constant values or NLS-translated values), in which case the user may still be interested in an indication that the value changed, but does not want to have every line flagged as non-comparing.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing documents with expected (controlled) differences, such as the change of a class name or a variable name.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method facilitating language-sensitive application of compare options (e.g., ignore case and ignore blanks applied only to language elements and comments, but not to contents of strings).
It is a further object of the invention to provide a system and method for comparing documents in any manner that is advantageous for a specific type of filed handled by the edit system.
Summary of the Invention In accordance with the invention, a system and method for the extension of any n-file compare and/or merge utility in an edit system includes services provided by a parser attached to the edit system for the particular file type. A compare command in the edit system is enabled by an extension-registration process to query, upon activation, for any compare extensions supported by the parser.
In accordance with an aspect of the invention, there is provided a computer program product configured to be operable to extend any n-file compare and/or merge utility in an edit system by providing services particular to a specific file type within a parser attached to the edit system for that particular file type.
Other features and advantages of this invention will become apparent from the following detailed description ofthe presently preferred embodiment ofthe invention, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
Brief Description of the Drawings Figure 1 illustrates a typical pull-down menu for the compare function in an edit system.
Figure 2 illustrates the main components of an edit system in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention.
Figures 3-6 are flow diagrams illustrating the steps of the preferred embodiment of the invention for invoking a compare utility.
Figure 7 illustrates an aspect of the registration of compare extensions.
Figure 8 illustrates a pull-down menu for the compare function in an edit system including, for example, two extended compare options.
Figure 9 illustrates components of an edit system implementing the two extended compare options of Figure 8.
Figure 10 is a screen capture illustration of a regular compare of two C-language documents.
Figure 11 is a screen capture illustration of a compare of the two C-language documents of Figure 10 according to the present invention.
Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention In accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention, the compare command in an edit system is enabled by an extension-registration process to query, upon activation, for any compare extensions supported by the parser attached to the edit system for the currently active files participating in the compare. This allows the parser to add its own compare options, specific to the file type it handles.
In this manner, the compare utility is able to smartly handle differences in content based on the internal structure of the documents, as this is recognized by the parser.
Furthermore, the compare utility can in this manner be customized based on the individual parsers abilities, but still in a consistent manner within the edit system.
When these extension options are selected by a user, the parser is invoked to provide one or more specific methods extending those used by the compare utility, such as supplying the (modified) content of the document text (for example, with the comments stripped out, or reformatted to include an entire language statement).
Compare Utility Options Referring to Figure 1, a typical pull-down menu 100 for the compare function in an edit system is illustrated.
Menu items 104-108 and 118-122 represent compare utility actions which work in the same manner regardless of the language context of the documents being compared.
Refresh 104 refreshes compare after any of the compared documents has been modified. This action 104 redoes the latest compare operation, with the same settings, options, and on the same documents, after the contents of any one or more of these documents has been modified.
Next mismatch 106 results in advancing the cursor to the next mismatch.
Previous mismatch 108 positions the cursor onto the previous mismatch.
Protect view 118 protects the view from editing. If the particular implementation of the compare utility displays n views side-by-side of the documents being compared, this menu action 118 applies to the currently-active view (the one with the focus).
If the compare utility shows a composite view of the main document compared to a file or files, then this action prevents the main document from being edited.
Show mismatches only 120 results in displaying only the mismatches.
Exit compare 122 exits the compare utility/mode. If the compare utility displays n views side-by-side of the documents being compared, these views are terminated and disposed. If the compare utility shows a composite view of the main document and the differences to the other documents, then all parser classes, highlights, and other compare-related pertinent information are cleared in this main document view.
Menu items 110-116 are compare options (or equivalently, settings in a Preferences dialog) which may be affected by the type of the compared documents, or that language-specific compare extensions may have to alter. These options 110-116 form part of the compare strategy.
Selection of ignore leading blanks 110 results in leading blanks/white space being removed from text during the comparison.
Ignore trailing blanks 112 results in trailing blanks being removed from text during the comparison.
Ignore all blanks 114 results in all blanks being removed from text during the comparison.
Ignore case 116 results in text being folded to lower/upper case during the comparison.
In accordance with an embodiment of the invention, the parser is able to override any of these compare options 110-116. For example, for ignore all blanks 114, blanks that form part of a C / C++ / Java language string should not be ignored: "ABC" is very different from "A B C". In accordance with this aspect of the invention, such new compare options are also added by the parsers.
Edit System Referring to Figure 2, the main components of a typical edit system 140 are illustrated, and will be described with particular reference to an embodiment of the system of the invention. Each block shown in edit system 140 represents one or more classes and comprise functions performed by the code in edit system 140, as well as data structures maintained for the documents being edited.
Document class 144 manages one document in the edit system: either a file loaded in the edit system, or a newly-created document. One or more documents 144 may be opened in an edit system session.
View class 146 manages a document view in the edit system 140. There may be several views on the same document open simultaneously in the edit system.
Screen class 148 handles the screen, i.e., the display of the edit window. It manages the display attributes of the rendered elements as set up in view 146 by the edit system and its attached tools - tokenization and colorization of the text as set up by the parsers and other utilities (e.g., the differences marked up by the compare utility in the edit system), the text selection in effect, etc. There is one instance of this class 148 for every document View 146.
Element class 150 manages each text line of document 144. It contains the text of the corresponding line in the document. In addition, show elements may be set in the edit system, which are lines of text displayed in the view of the document but which do not form part of it, and consequently are not saved when the document being edited is saved (e.g., imbedded error messages set up by a build utility, or differences shown by the compare utility). A linked list of elements 150 is maintained for each document 144 in edit system 140.
ElementView class 152 manages the view for one element 150. For each view 146 opened on document 144, and ElementView class 152 corresponding to each element 150 is instantiated. It keeps track of the parser classes and token styles assigned by the language parsers) and other associated utilities in the view 146, and also contains formatting flags and display attributes.
Parameter class 154 manages a setting of the edit system 140, and provides means for querying and setting of its install, default, and current values, according to its defined scope in the edit system. All the edit system settings are managed by classes extending parameter 154 for the handling of a particular setting.
Action class 156 manages one named action in the edit system.
Command class 158 manages one named command and its arguments.
Compare class 160 in edit system 140 handles the compare command itself and its arguments, and manages the registration and activation of compare extensions 168.
CompareStrategy class 162 provides a set of functions used for a compare operation. A linked list of CompareStrategies is maintained for each active compare session 160.
CommonParser class 164, from which the language parsers derive, implements a set of generic parser services and provides a parser interface to the edit system 140.
Parser class 166 is an edit-system extension which provides document-specific editing functionality.
Compare extension 168 provides document-specific extensions to the Compare utility.
Activities in edit system 140 are triggered by actions and commands. The edit system has a set of built-in (predefined) actions and commands. The system can be customized with user-defined actions and commands, which are new or override built-in (default) actions or commands. Actions can be associated with keys and menus (pull-down, toolbar, pop-up). For example, the "open" action, associated with the key combination "Ctrl+O" and the "Open..." item on the "File" pull-down menu, brings up the Open dialog, allowing the user to choose a file to be opened as a document 144 in edit system 140.
Language Parsers In accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention, compare utility is extendible through parser interfaces 165.
A language-specific parser 166 is an extension to the edit system 140 which provides a variety of functions which assist users of edit system 140 with their editing tasks.
A typical language parser 166 in an edit system 140 reads and analyzes (parses) document 144 contents according to its type; maintains this document information up-to-date throughout its editing; provides token colorization; provides a content-outline of the document; provides code-assist functions; provides automatic formatting of the user input (such as cursor-positioning and text-positioning indentation); provides navigation between classes and tokens, i.e., smart navigation between structural elements of document 144 as identified in a particular view 146 on the document; and provides language-sensitive help on the contents of the document.
Language-specific parsers 166 are attached to the edit system 140 via a file-type association mechanism. For example, the JavaParser class 166 is loaded when a Java source file (*.java or *.jav) is opened in the edit system. A parser 166 first gets control after a file has been loaded in the edit system (to perform an initial total parse), and subsequently it is called following certain edit system events, such as changes made to the document (incremental parse).
Parser 166 analyzes the document, and marks structural elements in it at various degrees of detail. Parser classes are defined for a view 146, that broadly classify element types in the view. Each element 150 can belong to one or more parser classes.
For example, text elements 150 which contain comments are marked with parser class CLASS COMMENT, C-language function header elements with CLASS_FUNCTION, Java-language method signature elements with CLASS_METHOD, etc. Additional classes may be defined by a parser to link consecutive elements that belong to the same language construct (CLASS_FORWARDLINK, CLASS_BACKWARDLINK), to indicate if a text element is empty (CLASS SPACE), and so on.
More detailed information is recorded by parser 166 via token styles set in the element view 152 for a text element 150. The token style characters identify all the text characters in an element 150, and permit association of the text with display attributes (e.g., an italicized, green-color display and print font style for the comment characters in the element, i.e., those text characters assigned the comment token style).
1 S The set of parsing functions described above is usually implemented on top of any available grammar-parser utility, adapted for use in an edit system and further expanded to support these functions.
The parser-set information is used by the edit system 140 to display the document 144 in a view 146 (colorized, filtered sections of the source, a bounded segment of the source, etc.), by other utilities and tools attached to the edit system to get detailed information about the structure of the document 144 for carrying out context-sensitive actions, and by the parser 166 itself as reference points for incremental parsing and for its other language-specific operations.
Compare Process Table 1 represents how the compare process in a typical compare utility 160 works.
Lines 1 - 9 indicate the typical settings and functions which may be modified by compare extensions 168. This set of functions is, according to the present invention, defined as a compare strategy. Alternative embodiments of the invention may include additional or other such settings and functions than those indicated here. Compare extensions 168 will modify one or more of these settings and functions in a compare strategy, and consequently modify the compare process for a particular compare operation.
TABLE 1: COMPARE PROCESS
for each document view participating in compare /l build vector of hash values for elements' text for all text elements in document view text := elementText(element) 1 if ignoreCase 2 text := IowerCase(text) 3 if ignoreLeadingBlanks 4 text := stripLeadingBlanks(text) 5 if ignoreTrailingBlanks 6 text := stripTrailingBlanks(text) 7 if ignoreAlIBlanks 8 text := stripAlIBlanks(text) 9 hashValues[element number] := hash(text) elements[element number] :-- element compare the hash-values vectors, determine largest blocks that compare, mark elements in the document views) accordingly, set up compare bars to visually summarize differences and link comparing blocks.
Referring to Table 2, the compare process, as implemented in compare utility according to this invention, will be the same for all compare strategies 162.
TABLE 2: COMPARE PROCESS FOR ALL COMPARE STRATEGIES
for each document view participating in compare /l build vector of hash values for elements' text strategy := instance of selected compare strategy for view for all text elements in document view text := strategy.elementText(element) 1 if strategy.ignoreCase() 2 text := strategy.ignoreCase(text) 3 if strategy.ignoreLeadingBlanksQ 4 text := strategy.ignoreLeadingBlanks(text) 5 if strategy.ignoreTrailingBlanksQ 6 text := strategy.ignoreTrailingBlanks(text) 7 if strategy.ignoreAlIBIanksQ 8 text := strategy.ignoreAlIBlanks(text) 9 hashValues[element number] := hash(text) elements[element number] := element compare the hash-values vectors, determine largest blocks that compare, mark elements in the document views) accordingly, set up compare bars to visually summarize differences and link comparing blocks.
Invocation of the Compare Utility Referring to Figures 3-6, when in step 170 the default "compare" action 160 is invoked in the edit system 140, in step 172 a compare dialog is displayed, which allows the user in step 174 to select the compare entities; for example, the existing document views 146 to compare or, depending on the edit system implementation, to select the files) with which to compare the currently active document view 146, for which files() document views) are instantiated in step 176.
Once the selected compare views 146 are determined (and optionally created for the selected files) not currently opened in the edit system), compare utility 160 can in step 178 establish whether the attached parsers 164 and 166 are identical, and consequently is able in step 180 to initiate the compare-extension 168 registration process. Depending on the desired embodiment, in step 180 the compare-extension 168 registration may now be invoked, and in step 182 the user is presented another dialog with the new compare options registered to select the desired option. Alternatively, the compare can proceed in step 190 with the default compare action in accordance with the default options in effect;
subsequently, the user can in step 192 select the compare menu pull-down, whose creation in step 194 will trigger in steps 178 and 180 the registration process, and in steps 182 and 196 the compare menu will be populated with the additional compare options registered for execution in steps 184 and 188.
Referring to Figure 6, other "compare" actions 200 can be defined programmatically in the edit system 140, which will invoke in steps 202 and 204 the compare utility 160 directly with a certain compare-extension strategy.
Registration of compare extensions Referring to Figure 7, compare utility 160 calls the parser 166 to register any compare-extensions 168 whenever all the documents 144 participating in the compare/merge have the same parser 166. Similarly, this is done for extensions registered by parsers extending the same base parser 166. For example, parsers for various flavors of the C language for different platforms (such as Windows, AIX, and OS2), all extend a base C-language parser 210. As a consequence, documents 144 handled by any combination of these parsers 212-224 can participate in the compare extensions 168 registered by the basic CParser 210.
The registration process is initiated by the Compare utility 160 calling a CommonParser 164 entry point registerCompareExtensions() to allow the parser for the document view 146 to register its compare strategies 162, if any, such as a parser default strategy and/or additional strategies for extra compare options. This is accomplished by the parser 166, which extends CommonParser 164 and overrides registerCompareExtensionsQ if it has any compare extensions 168 to register, to call in turn the Compare utility 160 entry point registerStrategy() for each compare extension 168 it wants to register.
The Compare class 160 adds each compare strategy 162 indicated via the registerStrategy() calls to its linked list of strategies forthe current compare session. When it is returned control from registerCompareExtensionsQ, it is able to go through the compareStrategiesList just created, and query each registered strategy for the compare option to display to the user, and create an edit-system action for each such option (e.g., menu item, checkbox, etc.).
When the user selects a particular compare option, the defined action is run, which in turn calls the compare process 160 with the associated compare strategy 162.
Compare Strategy Each compare extension 168 implements a compare strategy, i.e., implements the compare-utility callback extendible methods, which either override, or extend compare-utility 160 methods, or call super() (the parent-class method) to effectively change nothing in the Compare utility default strategy (when the method is not altered by the particular compare extension 168).
Through this method-extension mechanism, various other compare details may be implicitly modified as pertinent to the option selected (e.g., turning on by default the "ignore blanks" setting, so as to ignore any blanks outside the language constructs when ignoring comments in the comparison).
Table 3 illustrates a typical base CompareStrategy class as implemented in the compare utility 160 of edit system 140. It defines the default compare strategy 162 for the basic compare options defined in the edit system.
TABLE 3: COMPARE
CompareStrategy /**
* This class consists of methods for a compare-command action * The implementation of this class provides the default strategy * for a compare action.
* Parsers may extend this class to override or extend methods, * in order to create their default strategy, or a compare strategy * for a language-specific compare extension.
*/
public class CompareStrategy /l keep a reference to the compare view using this strategy protected View view;
/i'*
* Constructor for this compare strategy.
* It instantiates the strategy for a particular compare view.
*/
public CompareStrategy(View view) f yew = mew;
3 0 /**
* Retrieve the compare view of this strategy instance.
*/
public View view() return view;
/i'*
* Retrieve the name of the compare option implemented through this * strategy.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * does nothing, except return null. The parser implementing a * particular strategy for a compare option should override this * method to return a string suitable for display as a compare-option * menu item.
*/
public String compareOptionNameQ
return null;
/**
* Query whether differences in the character case of the compared text * are significant.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the currently effective setting of the "compare.ignoreCase"
* edit-system parameter for this compare view.
*/
public boolean ignoreCase() is f return Compare.ignoreCaseParameter().currentValue(_view);
/~'*
* Return a case-neutral variation of the text passed in.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the lower-case version of the entire submitted string.
*/
public String ignoreCase(String text) return IowerCase(text);
* Query whether the compare operation should ignore leading blanks in * the compared text.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the current setting of the "compare.ignoreLeading8lanks"
* edit-system parameter for this compare view.
*/
public boolean ignoreLeadingBlanks() return Compare.ignoreLeadingBlanksParameter().currentValue(_view);
}
/'**
* Return a no-leading-blanks variation of the text passed in.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the submitted text with any leading white space stripped.
*/
public String ignoreLeadingBlanks(String text) return stripLeadingBlanks(text);
/**
* Query whether the compare operation should ignore trailing blanks * in the compared text.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the current setting of the "compare.ignoreTrailing8lanks"
* edit-system parameter for this compare view.
*/
public boolean ignoreTrailingBlanks() return Compare.ignoreTrailingBlanksParameter().currentValue( view);
/**
* Return a no-trailing-blanks variation of the text passed in.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the submitted text with any trailing white space stripped.
*/
public String ignoreTrailingBlanks(String text) return stripTrailingBlanks(text);
/**
* Query whether the compare operation should ignore blank characters * (white space) in the compared text.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * returns the current setting of the "compare.ignoreAllBlanks"
* edit-system parameter for this compare view.
*/
public boolean ignoreAIIBlanks() return Compare.ignoreAlIBIanksParameter().currentValue(_view);
* Return a no-blanks variation of the text passed in.
* The implementation of this method in the default compare strategy * refurns the submitted text with any white space stripped.
*/
public String ignoreAIIBlanks(String text) {
return stripAIIBlanks(text);
/**
* Retrieve the text of an element in the document, which will be used * in the compare process.
* The parser implementing a particular compare strategy may override * this method to return an altered string of the actual text element * content (e.g., with the comments stripped for an "Ignore comments"
* compare option).
*/
public String elementText(int element) /l retrieve element Element a = view.elementAt(element);
/l valid element - return its text if (e != null) {
return e.text();
}
//element not available - return null else {
return null;
Compare Extension Compare utility 160 loads and invokes the particular parser class when the user selects an extension option. The compare utility then runs in the usual manner, however certain of its methods are now handled by the parser 166 for the particular type of document and compare option.
Compare strategies can be implemented either in the parser 166 itself, or in the common parser 164 for more generic compare options (such as "Ignore comments"), with the language-specific methods further implemented in the language parsers 166.
Referring to Figure 8, there are two extensions 132, 134 provided to the edit system compare utility for C documents. The C language parser 166, in conjunction with the Common Parser 164, effectively implements both these CompareStrategy extensions, overriding or extending one or more methods in the default CompareStrategy class, for the compare options "Ignore comments" 132 and "Compare functions only" 134. Figure illustrates the modified Compare menu pull-down of Figure 1 after the addition of these two extensions 168.
The two additional compare options 132, 134 are added to the compare menu 130 during the compare-extension registration process.
Referring to Figure 9, a preferred implementation of the edit system of these two compare extensions 132, 134 is illustrated. In this example, common parser 230 corresponds to common parser 164, and includes the compare strategy 162 for option "Ignore comments" CompareStrategylgnoreComments 232, and procedure elementsTextNoCommentsQ 234. C parser 210 corresponds to parser 166, and includes procedure elementTextNoComments() 236 which overrides procedure elementTextNoComments() 234 in the common parser 230, procedure elementCode() 238, and compare strategy 162 for option "Compare functions only"
CompareStrategyFunctions 240.
The methods not implemented in the extension strategy classes below will activate, when invoked during the comparison, the original methods in the base CompareStrategy class (the default compare strategy 162 is illustrated in Table 3):
TABLE 4: COMPARE EXTENSION
COMMON PARSER:
CompareStrategylgnoreComments /**
* This compare strategy consists of methods for the compare-command * "Ignore comments" action. It extends the default Compare strategy.
* Only methods that are different from the default CompareStrategy are * implemented in here.
* This compare extension is registered with Compare for all parsers that * support stripping of comments from the element text.
*/
public class CompareStrategylgnoreComments extends CompareStrategy f /**
* Invoke the constructor of the default compare strategy.
*/
public CompareStrategylgnoreComments(View view) super(view);
/**
* Return the name of the compare option implemented through this * strategy.
*/
public String compareOptionNameQ
f return "Ignore comments";
}
/**
* Indicate that the compare operation should ignore blank characters * (white space) in the compared text.
* Once comments are stripped from the element text, it's important * to ignore the left-over blank characters, regardless of the manner * in which the parser removes the comments.
*/
public boolean ignoreAlIBIanksQ
{
return true;
/**
* Retrieve the text of an element in the document, which will be used * in the compare process. All the comments are stripped.
*/
public String elementText(int element) // invoke the call-back (hook) which the parser extends in order to // carry out the actual comment-removal return elementTextNoComments(element);
}
}
elementTextNoComments(element) /**
* This method is part of the Common Parser interface.
* A parser may override this method to return the text of an element * with the comments stripped out.
* The implementation of this method in the Common Parser returns the * complete text ('as is') of the element.
* @param element - element in the document */
String elementTextNoComments(int element) return view.elementText(element);
}
C PARSER:
CompareStrategyFunctions /**
* This compare strategy consists of methods for the compare-command * "Compare functions only" action. It extends the default Compare * strategy. Only methods that are different from the default * CompareStrategy are implemented in here.
*/
public class CompareStrategyFunctions extends CompareStrategy /**
* Invoke the constructor of the default compare strategy.
*/
public CompareStrategyFunctions(View view) super(view);
/**
* Return the name of the compare option implemented through this * strategy.
*/
public String compareOptionName() return "Compare functions only";
}
/**
* Retrieve the text of an element in the document, which will be used * in the compare process. Only function-header elements are returned;
* no other elements participate in the compare process.
*/
public String elementText(int element) if (element > 0) ~
// check that the parser has set the CLASS_FUNCTION
// parser class for this element if ((view.elementClasses(element) & classFunction) != 0) ~
// if function header, return element's text return view.elementText(element);
}
// not a function-header element return null;
}
elementTextNoComments(element) /**
* Retrieve the text of a document's element without the comments.
* Overrides the generic call-back method defined in Common Parser.
* @param element - element in the document */
String elementTextNoComments(int element) if (element > 0) ~
return elementCode(element); // see method below }
else {
return null;
elementCode(element) /**
* Retrieve the code (comments stripped) of an element.
* The comment characters, established as such by the parser, are * blanked out in the returned string.
* For example, for this line of C code:
* int i = 10 /* a reasonable constant */ + j; // init. i * the parser will have set this style string:
* Kkk_I_O_Nn_Ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc_O_IP_Cccccccccc * and this method will return the string below:
* inti=10 +j;
* An alternative implementation of this method could strip, rather * replace with blanks, the comment characters, returning:
* inti=10 +j;
* @param element - element in the document */
String elementCode(int element) f // style characters used by the parser to mark comments String commentStyles = "Cc";
// retrieve this element's style string String style = view.elementStyle(element);
// retrieve this element's text StringBuffer code = new StringBuffer(view.elementText(element));
// establish the valid range of the element text/style to process int i = style.length();
if (code.lengthQ < i) {
i = code.length();
}
// blank out all comment characters in the element's text while (--i >= 0) f if (commentStyles.indexOf(style charAt(i)) >= 0) {
code.setCharAt(i, ' ');
}
// return resulting string return code.toStringQ;
}
EXAMPLE
Referring to Figures 10 and 11, an example illustrating comparisons of two C-language documents is shown. As illustrated in Figure 10, the differences between the two documents 250 and 252 consist of one actual code change at 254, and a series of documentation (comments) changes at 256, 258 and 260. As illustrated in Figure 11, when the menu option "Ignore comments" 132 is selected, the compare only highlights the actual code changes at 254, clearing in Figure 11 the cluttered display of Figure 10 from all the compare information 256, 258, 260 which is not pertinent. The compare extension 168 in this case is implemented in the C parser 210, an embodiment of parser 166. C
parser 210 strips the comments (all text identified by the COMMENT class and comment style characters in the total and incremental parse operations) when supplying the text to the compare utility 160. As a result, the line-by-line comparison taking place after the hash operation will see these lines as effectively identical.
The user may be optionally informed of further differences existing between the compared documents, beyond the ones highlighted, through various means, such as (1 ) a message on the status line; or (2) keeping all the differences present in the compare bars 262 located between the edit views 250, 252. This option can be implemented by carrying out the compare procedure for the compare bars 262 between the views using the default compare strategy (or the parser default strategy, or a variation of it), and for the highlights 254 inside the views using the compare extension's registered strategy. Or, (3) other similar means, depending on the particular implementation.
Advantages over the Prior Art It is, therefore, an advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing source files code while ignoring the comments.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing functions and/or methods defined in source files (names, arguments, etc.), regardless of their detailed implementation.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing code while ignoring the text located outside margins, in a prefix area, and/or including or excluding sequence numbers, and so forth.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing source code statement-by-statement, e.g., one-line statement vs.
a reformatted statement spread over a number of document lines, effectively ignoring the differences in formatting styles between programmers or coding standards and practices between projects or institutions.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing constant definitions or keys in, for example, Java resource files, where the values are different (e.g., new constant values or NLS-translated values), in which case the user may still be interested in an indication that the value changed, but does not want to have every line flagged as non-comparing.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing documents with expected (controlled) differences, such as the change of a class name or a variable name.
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method facilitating language-sensitive application of compare options (e.g., ignore case and ignore blanks applied only to language elements and comments, but not to contents of strings).
It is a further advantage of the invention that there is provided a system and method for comparing documents in any manner that is advantageous for a specific type of filed handled by the edit system.
Alternative Embodiments It will be appreciated that, although specific embodiments of the invention have been described herein for purposes of illustration, various modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. In particular, it is within the scope of the invention to provide a computer program product or program element, or a program storage or memory device such as a solid or fluid transmission medium, magnetic or optical wire, tape or disc, or the like, for storing signals readable by a machine, for controlling the operation of a computer according to the method of the invention and/or to structure its components in accordance with the system of the invention.
Further, each step of the method may be executed on any general computer, such as an IBM System 390, AS/400, PC or the like and pursuant to one or more, or a part of one or more, program elements, modules or objects generated from any programming language, such as C++, Java, PI/1 or the tike. And still further, each said step, or a file or object or the like implementing each said step, may be executed by special purpose hardware or a circuit module designed for that purpose.
Accordingly, the scope of protection of this invention is limited only by the following claims and their equivalents.
Claims (41)
1. System for comparing source files, comprising:
a language specific parser;
an edit system including a comparator for comparing at least two files, said comparator selectively querying said language specific parser for any compare extensions.
a language specific parser;
an edit system including a comparator for comparing at least two files, said comparator selectively querying said language specific parser for any compare extensions.
2. The system of claim 1, said edit system further comprising:
a set of compare methods defining a compare stategy for execution by said comparator;
said comparator being responsive to said language specific parser for selectively extending said compare strategy in accordance with said compare extensions.
a set of compare methods defining a compare stategy for execution by said comparator;
said comparator being responsive to said language specific parser for selectively extending said compare strategy in accordance with said compare extensions.
3. The system of claim 2, said edit system further comprising:
a compare command enabled by an extension registration process for querying said language specific parser for said compare extensions.
a compare command enabled by an extension registration process for querying said language specific parser for said compare extensions.
4. The system of claim 3, further comprising:
a common parser including a register compare extensions entry point responsive to a call from said comparator initiating said extension registration process for registering a default strategy; and said language specific parser for extending said common parser by overriding said register compare extension entry point with any compare extensions to be registered.
a common parser including a register compare extensions entry point responsive to a call from said comparator initiating said extension registration process for registering a default strategy; and said language specific parser for extending said common parser by overriding said register compare extension entry point with any compare extensions to be registered.
5. The system of claim 3, said language specific parser further comprising a plurality of platform specific parsers for extending said language specific parser by registering extensions for different platforms.
6. The system of claim 2, further comprising a plurality of languages specific parsers.
7. The system of claim 6, said comparator initiating said compare registration process when each of said files is associated with a same language specific parser.
8. The system of claim 1, further comprising a display for displaying in a pull-down menu a plurality of compare utility actions and compare options, said compare options comprising a compare strategy including said compare extensions.
9. The system of claim 1, said compare extensions specifying that said comparator ignore comments.
10. The system of claim 1, said compare extensions specifying the comparison of functions and methods defined in source files without regard to their detailed implementation.
11. The system of claim 1, said compare extensions specifying the comparison of code while ignoring text located outside of margins, in a prefix area, and/or including or excluding sequence numbers.
12. The system of claim 1, said compare extensions specifying the comparison of source code statement by statement.
13. The system of claim 12, said comparison of source code statement by statement effectively ignoring differences in formatting styles.
14. The system of claim 1, said compare extensions providing for the comparison of constant key definitions and identification of a change in value without flagging every line containing a given changed constant key as non-comparing.
15. The system of claim 1, said compare extensions providing for changed class or variable names as expected changes not to be flagged as non-comparing.
16. System for comparing document files, comprising:
a language specific parser;
an edit system including a comparator for comparing two files, said comparator selectively querying said language specific parser for any compare extensions;
a display for displaying in a pull-down menu a plurality of compare utility actions and compare options, selected said compare options comprising a compare strategy including said compare extensions;
said language specific parser being responsive to user selection of a said compare extension for providing a corresponding method to said comparator; and said display further for displaying said document files with non-comparing elements highlighted according to said compare strategy.
a language specific parser;
an edit system including a comparator for comparing two files, said comparator selectively querying said language specific parser for any compare extensions;
a display for displaying in a pull-down menu a plurality of compare utility actions and compare options, selected said compare options comprising a compare strategy including said compare extensions;
said language specific parser being responsive to user selection of a said compare extension for providing a corresponding method to said comparator; and said display further for displaying said document files with non-comparing elements highlighted according to said compare strategy.
17. Method for comparing entities, comprising:
selecting a plurality of compare entities;
identifying an attached parser corresponding to each said compare entity;
responsive to each said compare entity being identified to the same attached parser, executing a compare extension registration process;
responsive to said compare extension registration process, defining a compare strategy for comparing said entities.
selecting a plurality of compare entities;
identifying an attached parser corresponding to each said compare entity;
responsive to each said compare entity being identified to the same attached parser, executing a compare extension registration process;
responsive to said compare extension registration process, defining a compare strategy for comparing said entities.
18. The method of claim 17, further comprising the step of:
responsive to user selection of a compare action, displaying to said user a compare dialog for selecting said plurality of compare entities.
responsive to user selection of a compare action, displaying to said user a compare dialog for selecting said plurality of compare entities.
19. The method of claim 18, further comprising the step of:
responsive to said compare extension registration process, displaying to said user a further dialog comprising language specific compare options for user selection in defining said compare strategy.
responsive to said compare extension registration process, displaying to said user a further dialog comprising language specific compare options for user selection in defining said compare strategy.
20. The method of claim 19, further comprising the steps of:
responsive to said compare action, registering a default strategy; and selectively extending or overriding said default strategy with any compare extensions to be registered.
responsive to said compare action, registering a default strategy; and selectively extending or overriding said default strategy with any compare extensions to be registered.
21. The method claim 20, further comprising the step of:
operating a language specific parser and one of a plurality of platform specific parsers to register said compare extensions.
operating a language specific parser and one of a plurality of platform specific parsers to register said compare extensions.
22. The method of claim 17, said compare strategy specifying that comments be ignored.
23. The method of claim 17, said compare strategy specifying the comparison of functions and methods defined in source files without regard to their detailed implementation.
24. The method of claim 17, said compare strategy specifying the comparison of code while ignoring text located outside of margins, in a prefix area, and/or including or excluding sequence numbers.
25. The method of claim 17, said compare strategy specifying the comparison of source code statement by statement.
26. The method of claim 17, said comparison of source code statement by statement effectively ignoring differences in formatting styles.
27. The method of claim 17, said compare strategy providing for the comparison of constant key definitions and identification of a change in value without flagging every line containing a given changed constant key as non-comparing.
28. The method of claim 17, said compare strategy providing for changed class or variable names as expected changes not to be flagged as non-comparing.
29. Method for comparing document files, comprising the steps of:
comparing within an edit system at least two document files according to a compare strategy including compare extensions provided by an external language specific parser; and displaying said document files with non-comparing elements highlighted according to said compare strategy.
comparing within an edit system at least two document files according to a compare strategy including compare extensions provided by an external language specific parser; and displaying said document files with non-comparing elements highlighted according to said compare strategy.
30. A program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by a machine to perform method steps for comparing document files, said method steps comprising:
comparing within an edit system at least two document files according to a compare strategy including compare extensions provided by an external language specific parser; and displaying said document files with non-comparing elements highlighted according to said compare strategy.
comparing within an edit system at least two document files according to a compare strategy including compare extensions provided by an external language specific parser; and displaying said document files with non-comparing elements highlighted according to said compare strategy.
31. A program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by a machine to perform method steps for entities, said method steps comprising:
selecting a plurality of compare entities;
identifying an attached parser corresponding to each said compare entity;
responsive to each said compare entity being identified to the same attached parser, executing a compare extension registration process;
selecting a plurality of compare entities;
identifying an attached parser corresponding to each said compare entity;
responsive to each said compare entity being identified to the same attached parser, executing a compare extension registration process;
32 responsive to said compare extension registration process, defining a compare strategy for comparing said entities; and responsive to user selection of a compare action, displaying to said user a compare dialog for selecting said plurality of compare entities.
32. The program storage device of claim 31, said method steps further comprising:
responsive to said compare extension registration process, displaying to said user a further dialog comprising language specific compare options for user selection in defining said compare strategy;
responsive to said compare action, registering a default strategy; and selectively extending or overriding said default strategy with any compare extensions to be registered.
32. The program storage device of claim 31, said method steps further comprising:
responsive to said compare extension registration process, displaying to said user a further dialog comprising language specific compare options for user selection in defining said compare strategy;
responsive to said compare action, registering a default strategy; and selectively extending or overriding said default strategy with any compare extensions to be registered.
33. The program storage device of claim 31, said compare strategy specifying that comments be ignored.
34. The program storage device of claim 31, said compare strategy specifying the comparison of functions and methods defined in source files without regard to their detailed implementation.
35. The program storage device of claim 31, said compare strategy specifying the comparison of code while ignoring text located outside of margins, in a prefix area, and/or including or excluding sequence numbers.
36. The program storage device of claim 31, said compare strategy specifying the comparison of source code statement by statement.
37. The program storage device of claim 31, said comparison of source code statement by statement effectively ignoring differences in formatting styles.
38. The program storage device of claim 31, said compare strategy providing for the comparison of constant key definitions and identification of a change in value without flagging every line containing a given changed constant key as non-comparing.
39. The program storage device of claim 31, said compare strategy providing for changed class or variable names as expected changes not to be flagged as non-comparing.
40. A computer program product or computer program element for executing the method steps of:
comparing within an edit system at least two document files according to a compare strategy including compare extensions provided by an external language specific parser; and displaying said document files with non-comparing elements highlighted according to said compare strategy.
comparing within an edit system at least two document files according to a compare strategy including compare extensions provided by an external language specific parser; and displaying said document files with non-comparing elements highlighted according to said compare strategy.
41. The system of claim 1, said compare extensions providing for comparing documents according to an attribute of the type of file handled by said edit system.
Priority Applications (2)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA002328566A CA2328566A1 (en) | 2000-12-15 | 2000-12-15 | System and method for providing language-specific extensions to the compare facility in an edit system |
| US10/017,059 US7149680B2 (en) | 2000-12-15 | 2001-12-14 | System and method for providing language-specific extensions to the compare facility in an edit system |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA002328566A CA2328566A1 (en) | 2000-12-15 | 2000-12-15 | System and method for providing language-specific extensions to the compare facility in an edit system |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CA2328566A1 true CA2328566A1 (en) | 2002-06-15 |
Family
ID=4167908
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA002328566A Abandoned CA2328566A1 (en) | 2000-12-15 | 2000-12-15 | System and method for providing language-specific extensions to the compare facility in an edit system |
Country Status (2)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| US (1) | US7149680B2 (en) |
| CA (1) | CA2328566A1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (17)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATE286294T1 (en) * | 2001-03-29 | 2005-01-15 | Koninkl Philips Electronics Nv | SYNCHRONIZING AN AUDIO AND A TEXT CURSOR DURING EDITING |
| US20030145278A1 (en) * | 2002-01-22 | 2003-07-31 | Nielsen Andrew S. | Method and system for comparing structured documents |
| US20030233621A1 (en) * | 2002-06-13 | 2003-12-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Editor for smart version control |
| US20050222968A1 (en) * | 2004-04-06 | 2005-10-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | System, method and program product for identifying differences between sets of program container files |
| US8504369B1 (en) | 2004-06-02 | 2013-08-06 | Nuance Communications, Inc. | Multi-cursor transcription editing |
| US7836412B1 (en) | 2004-12-03 | 2010-11-16 | Escription, Inc. | Transcription editing |
| US7823144B2 (en) * | 2005-12-29 | 2010-10-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Computer program code comparison using lexemes |
| US7853924B2 (en) * | 2006-04-13 | 2010-12-14 | Sap Ag | Systems and methods for processing non-functional commentary of computer source code |
| US9207933B2 (en) * | 2006-10-10 | 2015-12-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Identifying authors of changes between multiple versions of a file |
| US20080295085A1 (en) * | 2007-05-25 | 2008-11-27 | Microsoft Corporation | Integrated code review tool |
| EP2191421A4 (en) * | 2007-09-17 | 2013-05-08 | Capfinder Aktiebolag | System for assisting in drafting applications |
| US8364696B2 (en) | 2009-01-09 | 2013-01-29 | Microsoft Corporation | Efficient incremental parsing of context sensitive programming languages |
| TWI447641B (en) * | 2009-03-31 | 2014-08-01 | Ibm | Method and computer program product for displaying document on mobile device |
| US8452606B2 (en) * | 2009-09-29 | 2013-05-28 | Skype | Speech encoding using multiple bit rates |
| US8776017B2 (en) * | 2010-07-26 | 2014-07-08 | Check Point Software Technologies Ltd | Scripting language processing engine in data leak prevention application |
| US8914784B2 (en) * | 2011-06-10 | 2014-12-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for checking the consistency of application jar files |
| US9612826B2 (en) * | 2014-07-31 | 2017-04-04 | Facebook, Inc. | Attributing authorship to segments of source code |
Family Cites Families (8)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US4558413A (en) * | 1983-11-21 | 1985-12-10 | Xerox Corporation | Software version management system |
| JP3724847B2 (en) * | 1995-06-05 | 2005-12-07 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Structured document difference extraction method and apparatus |
| US6366933B1 (en) * | 1995-10-27 | 2002-04-02 | At&T Corp. | Method and apparatus for tracking and viewing changes on the web |
| CA2175711A1 (en) * | 1996-05-01 | 1997-11-02 | Lee Richard Nackman | Incremental compilation of c++ programs |
| US5898836A (en) * | 1997-01-14 | 1999-04-27 | Netmind Services, Inc. | Change-detection tool indicating degree and location of change of internet documents by comparison of cyclic-redundancy-check(CRC) signatures |
| US6236993B1 (en) * | 1998-06-24 | 2001-05-22 | Victor V. Fanberg | Computer file comparison method |
| CA2255047A1 (en) * | 1998-11-30 | 2000-05-30 | Ibm Canada Limited-Ibm Canada Limitee | Comparison of hierarchical structures and merging of differences |
| US6714905B1 (en) * | 2000-05-02 | 2004-03-30 | Iphrase.Com, Inc. | Parsing ambiguous grammar |
-
2000
- 2000-12-15 CA CA002328566A patent/CA2328566A1/en not_active Abandoned
-
2001
- 2001-12-14 US US10/017,059 patent/US7149680B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| US20020143522A1 (en) | 2002-10-03 |
| US7149680B2 (en) | 2006-12-12 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| US7149680B2 (en) | System and method for providing language-specific extensions to the compare facility in an edit system | |
| US5509116A (en) | Graphical user interface management system | |
| US6964010B1 (en) | Formatted-item list control | |
| JP4972254B2 (en) | Integrated method for creating refreshable web queries | |
| US8170901B2 (en) | Extensible framework for designing workflows | |
| US8078960B2 (en) | Rendering an HTML electronic form by applying XSLT to XML using a solution | |
| US7127704B2 (en) | Interactive software engineering tool with support for embedded lexical contexts | |
| US8386919B2 (en) | System for displaying an annotated programming file | |
| JP2006107478A (en) | Extensible flamework for designing work flow | |
| US20030071860A1 (en) | System and method for managing graphical components | |
| WO2007027737A1 (en) | Markup based extensibility for user interfaces | |
| CA2337344A1 (en) | Method and apparatus for interacting with a source code control system | |
| US20040205663A1 (en) | Undo/redo architecture across multiple files | |
| US7409642B2 (en) | Method and system for applying user interface elements to data | |
| US7487515B1 (en) | Programmable object model for extensible markup language schema validation | |
| Ferrans et al. | HyperWeb: a framework for hypermedia-based environments | |
| US20080189311A1 (en) | Visual controls for stored procedure and object relational class development | |
| US20090228678A1 (en) | Mapping definition creation system and mapping definition creation program | |
| Lougher et al. | Group support for the recording and sharing of maintenance rationale | |
| KR100327904B1 (en) | System and Method for Component Customization | |
| JPH0683594A (en) | Graphical user interface, wherein withy-wig type edditer and compiler are integrated | |
| JP3624447B2 (en) | Component generation source program generation device | |
| TW552557B (en) | Automatic program generating system and the method thereof | |
| EP1065584A1 (en) | Command handling in a data processing system | |
| Costabile et al. | Iconit: an environment for design and prototyping of iconic interfaces |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| EEER | Examination request | ||
| FZDE | Discontinued |