Complementary model-driven and textual development using enforced formatting constraints

A complementary editor opens a plurality of views. Changes are received in a particular view of the plurality of views. The received changes are propagated to other views of the plurality of views other than the particular view and received by each particular view. The propagated changes are transformed in each particular view by a computer based on formatting constraints associated with each particular view and display of the transformed propagated changes is initiated in each particular view.

BACKGROUND

Through digital transformations, games, wearables, cyber-physical, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices are evolving and growing fields of programmable software and hardware units integrated into human's everyday lives. These units are currently programmed in a disconnected and abstract fashion in conventional software editors. The current state of the art of programming is inherently either dominated by a “textual” (for example, source code) or “model-driven” (for example, external domain specific language (DSL)) abstraction level, which hides views of crucial aspects (for example, a model or text and instant feedback through an executing runtime). In particular, the lack of instant feedback through runtime leads to inefficient software or hardware integration.

SUMMARY

The present disclosure describes methods and systems, including computer-implemented methods, computer program products, and computer systems for complementary model-driven and textual development using enforced formatting constraints.

In an implementation, a complementary editor opens a plurality of views. Changes are received in a particular view of the plurality of views. The received changes are propagated to other views of the plurality of views other than the particular view and received by each particular view. The propagated changes are transformed in each particular view by a computer based on formatting constraints associated with each particular view and display of the transformed propagated changes is initiated in each particular view.

Particular implementations of described methods and systems can include corresponding computer systems, apparatuses, or computer programs (or a combination of computer systems, apparatuses, and computer program) recorded on one or more computer storage devices, each configured to perform the actions of the methods. A system of one or more computers can be configured to perform particular operations or actions by virtue of having software, firmware, hardware, or a combination of software, firmware, or hardware installed on the system that in operation causes the system to perform the actions. One or more computer programs can be configured to perform particular operations or actions by virtue of including instructions that, when executed by data processing apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform the actions.

The above-described implementation is implementable using a computer-implemented method; a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions to perform the computer-implemented method; and a computer system comprising a computer memory interoperably coupled with a hardware processor configured to perform the computer-implemented method/the instructions stored on the non-transitory, computer-readable medium.

The subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in particular implementations so as to realize one or more of the following advantages. First, the described subject matter provides a modelling and development environment that is flexible and can be adapted to be used in various and multiple domains. Second, the described subject matter provides an efficient workflow that reduces feedback cycle and improves development process significantly compared to existing approaches. Efficient workflow is achieved through a life artifact execution (reactive) and an immediate propagation to all views (actual). Execution of code/model is permitted and backpropagation of arbitrarily complex runtime information to other views occurs. Code/model changes in the runtime propagate to other views. The described method is designed to run in a central, easy accessible place (for example, the Internet or other network) for instant readiness/use. From a domain point of view, syntactical and semantical services are completely within the definition of the described method. Combinations with existing tools and concepts are possible and allow for continuity when starting use from legacy code bases. Constraint enforcement and bi-directional mappings reduce complexities of underlying software development domains. Other advantages will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The following detailed description describes complementary model-driven and textual development using enforced formatting constraints and is presented to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the disclosed subject matter in the context of one or more particular implementations. Various modifications to the disclosed implementations will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be applied to other implementations and applications without departing from scope of the disclosure. Thus, the present disclosure is not intended to be limited to the described or illustrated implementations, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and features disclosed herein.

Conventional programming and tools are not simultaneously flexible, usable, actual, and reactive. Therefore, development cycles and their toolchains are long-running and intricate. For example, some editors do not support to work with several computing languages and their embedding within each other (that is, a lack of flexibility). All editors support programming models of long intra-development cycles (that is, a lack of efficiency). In conventional editors, model-driven and textual programming are disconnected by having all information in one place (that is, a lack of reactiveness). Conventional editors do not have instant feedback, for example, from an executing runtime or compiler (that is, a lack of actuality). Further, most programming editors are local applications and not usable without installation procedures on a computing device. As a result, these programming editors do not support auto-layouts and formatting of model and source code as top level concepts (that is, a lack of usability).

The described approach uses a “complementary editor” that comprehensively ensures flexibility, efficiency, reactiveness, actuality, and usability, which allows for efficient software development even in complex domains. Efficient workflow is achieved through a life artifact execution (reactive) and an immediate propagation to all views (actual). Execution of code/model is permitted and backpropagation of arbitrarily complex runtime information to other views occurs. Code/model changes in the runtime propagate to other views.The described approach consists of a conceptual editor definition that is flexible (that is, embedded multi-grammar and language editing), usable, actual (for example, changing the runtime or its model leads to changes to the textual and graphical model) and reactive, which combines the benefits of integrated development environments with language workbenches. Complex systems can be implemented and (continuously) delivered using the same editor. For instance, development of an integration language, for which the icon notation, the configuration and the messaging constructs are developed and deployed from the editor, in which the icons are designed.The editor is defined to be extendable (for example, using a plugin or other mechanism), adaptable (for example, grammars and meta-models can be changed at runtime and new grammars and meta models can be created ad-hoc) and supporting collaboration functionality (for example, multiple users can work on one model at the same time), timely (for example, capturing input and replaying it on another runtime) and supporting large amounts of data (for example, large models, code bases, configurations, and the like).The definition of an information complete semantic model (textual and model) and an event mechanism, which allows all parts of the concept to be kept up-to-date.The specification of pair-wise, bi-directional transformation constraints for the automatic synchronization. The semantic model is programmable from both directions for textual and model views (that is, in addition, changing the model leads to source code changes, thus to immediate compilation and runtime log updates). The bi-directional transformation can be based on textual constraints and model constraints. The textual constraints may include ordering (for example, based on dependency, analysis), chosen ambiguities (for example, syntactical precedence), and whitespaces (for example, pretty printer configuration, enforcement of code and style conventions). The model constraints may include xy-positioning (for example, layouts and algorithms) and width-height of shapes (for example, layouts).The definition of pretty printer constraints (language) and a pretty printer generator. Code and model changes lead to ad-hoc auto-formatting, according to the language's formatting and modeling guidelines. The editor is available from any lifecycle aspect view (for example, text, model, etc.) and supports all necessary views to complete a complex task (for example, changing the grammar of a language, while programming).

FIG. 1illustrates conventional and complementary programming flows100, according to an implementation. A conventional programming flow102is usually supported by integrated development environments (IDEs) that specialized on one of the two abstraction levels, which implies “hiding” information such as views on crucial aspects like a model or text and instant feedback through an executing runtime. The code is either generated (model-driven) and “glue-coded” to the actual code or simply coded (“code disconnect”), while models remain abstract code (“model disconnect”). In the conventional programming flow102the actual behavior is hidden beneath an a code or model abstraction, which requires long-running tool chains from step 1 of designing/modeling, step 2 of implementing/generating and gluing, step 3 of building and deploying, and step 4 of testing code. The “late” feedback is then used to change step 1 or step 2 and to re-iterate (runtime disconnected). Therefore, the real behavior lies behind a toolchain causing no instant feedback. In contrast, a new complementary programming flow104provides increased productivity and insight by integrating steps of design, implementation, build/deploy and test at each stage, merging time-consuming single steps and related interactions into one combined step to enable instant feedback by features such as reactiveness, actuality, etc. For the purposes of this disclosure, the new complementary programming is called flexible, usable, reactive programming (Flurp).

FIG. 2illustrates definitions and relationships200for a complementary editor, according to an implementation. Definitions and relationships200include:Domain (D1): general context (for example, message integration, database queries).Grammar (D2): structured definition of information (for example, Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF)) for a domain.Document (D3): piece of information in a special format (for example, grammar, meta-model, etc.).View (D4): can be textual or visual representation of a modifiable document.Link (D5): bi-directional change event mechanism that synchronizes two views (in contrast, a single directional change event is called sink D6).Editlet (D7): two or more linked or sinked views. Editlet is connected, if and only if, there is at least one view in each editlet, which is pairwise linked or sinked to at least one view′ in another editlet. One view exists only in one editlet.Editor (D8): a set of one or more connected editlets.Monitor (D9): is a composition of several editors of one domain (not necessarily in the same OS GUI window; for example, tiled windows).Runtime Information (D10): a runtime information document (for example runtime model, runtime log). Runtime state information expressed.Runtime System (D11): implementation of a concept domain.Runtime Binding (D12): invokes one or more runtime systems and collects log and runtime information.

FIG. 3Ais a block diagram of a Flurp-minimal editlet300a, according to an implementation. The Flurp-minimal editlet300aincludes a source code document view (textual) V-I302alinked to its model document view (visual) V-II304a, which means that changes in either component are instantly propagated and presented in the other component and vice-versa (C01).302acan be a classical textual source code editor with additional textual editing support features like syntax highlighting, automatic code refactorings, etc.304ais a model view that presents the information which is also in302bin a visual way (graphs, diagrams) and for example, allows editing using adding/removing additional nodes/edges (for example, seeFIG. 6right side, for a model view example). In some implementations, a textual markup editor with a visual rich text editor can be an example for a Flurp-minimal editlet300a.

FIG. 3Bis a block diagram of a monitor300b, according to an implementation. The monitor300bincludes an editlet (for example, a source code view and model view as shown inFIG. 3A), a log view302b, and a parser, complier, and pretty printer304b. This means that extending the concept described inFIG. 3A, a change to one of the components described inFIG. 3Ais also instantly propagated to the parser, compiler, and pretty printer (conceptual)304bwhich parses, compiles the code or model, and outputs compiler, parsing information (compile logs) to the log view302bthat presents this information to the user visually and/or textually. A pretty printer may also update the source code view with optimized, formatted code and thus enforces formatting constraints on the textual representation of the model.

FIG. 3Cis a block diagram of an actual monitor300c, according to an implementation. The actual monitor300cincludes a monitor (for example, a source code view302a, model view304a, log view302b, and parser, complier, and pretty printer304bas shown inFIG. 3B) and extending the concept described inFIG. 3B, a runtime binding302c. In some implementations, the runtime binding302cinvokes one or more runtime systems and collects log and runtime information (C04), that are propagated to a runtime log V-III while it executes or interprets the code or binaries (after compilation) propagated from the source code view (C03).

FIG. 4illustrates an example Flurp-minimal editlet400, according to an implementation. The left-hand side of the Flurp-minimal editlet400is a code view402showing integration language code, while the right-hand side denotes a model view404showing the corresponding graphical model. Changes in the graphical model lead to changes in the code and vice versa. In some implementations, a mouse-over on a model or code highlights its counterpart. For example, as illustrated inFIG. 4, the mouse-over on “mild” in the model view404highlights the corresponding code in the code view402.

FIG. 5Ais a block diagram of a conceptual complementary editor which extends the mechanism described inFIG. 3Cwith a visual Runtime Model (visual)502a, whereas the runtime binding302calso propagates events and runtime information to a complete runtime model (C05). The runtime log (textual)302bis linked to the runtime model (visual)502a(C06) and changes to either components are propagated to the other components.

FIG. 5Bis a block diagram of an example complementary editor used for language workbench and illustrates how the concept described inFIG. 5Acan also be applied to the domain of language workbenches that provide environments to ease development and definition of new computer languages. A computer language can be defined in a Grammar Editor for a given language X while using a textual grammar language Y (for example, Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF)). While defining the grammar a visual representation of the grammar is shown as a visual model of an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST)502b(V-II). The AST502bcan also be modified in the visual AST model view502band a change event propagated to the textual Grammar View504b(V-I) (C01). The grammar language is parsed using parser505band propagates parsing information to the Grammar Y parser log506b. The grammar for language Y can also be used to generate a parser in a Language X runtime binding508bby using a parser generator510b(for example, ANTLR). The generated parser can execute directly on Language X code for testing and emitting parsing information to the Grammar Y parser log506b(C04) and a Language X runtime model (visual)512b.

FIG. 6illustrates a first example flexible monitor600, according to an implementation. In a flexible monitor, editors of different domains can be combined. For example, the flexible monitor600combines a code view602and a model view604with a runtime model view608and a log view606. Notably, the runtime model can differ from a logical model. For instance,FIG. 6shows content-based message routing based on temperatures a sensor is continuously measuring. The runtime log can be configured to show current events (for example, the temperature) and which LEDs are switched on depending on routing rules. In the runtime the content-based router can be replaced by a multicast with filters. When a temp-value is pass from the sensor, the runtime model shows the route that it takes by weights on the edges in the graph (for example, temperature changed from cold to mild). The same content can be seen in the log in a textual representation. In some cases, the Flurp-minimal editlet inFIG. 4can also be a flexible monitor.

In some implementations, there can be a reactive editor where change events of linked views lead to an update of a linked or sinked view. There can also be an actual editor where a change event comes from or is delegated to a runtime binding. In some cases, there can be formatted updates where changes of information in a view is constrained. In some cases, the Flurp-minimal editlet inFIG. 4can also be a reactive, actual, flexible editor.

In some implementations, editor compositions for different domains may require either complete editlets (an editlet combination) or views linked or sinked to other editlets (latter called a view combination in other editors). In some cases, hierarchical editlets (for example, at a meta-model level) can be combined. For example, a Grammar-Text only editlet can be combined with a Code-Model-Log editlet. In this case, if a grammar is changed, the syntax of code can be changed immediately.

FIG. 7illustrates a second example flexible monitor700, according to an implementation. The flexible monitor700combines editlets of different languages but at the same level, for example, one editlet for configuration language and one for messaging language. The flexible monitor700includes a configuration language view702, a configuration model view704, an integration language view706, and an integration model view708. The flexible monitor700shows a form-based graphical model of configuration languages combined with textual and graphical views on an integration scenario description, which allows a user to model and configure an integration scenario at the same time (side-by-side) either textually, graphically, or mixed.

FIG. 8illustrates a third example flexible monitor800, according to an implementation. The flexible monitor800illustrates view inlining where messaging and configuration codes, as well as models of different languages, can be shown in one view (for example, side-by-side or mixed). The illustrated mouse over or mark shows internal information of different languages. The flexible monitor800includes an integration language view802and an integration model view804where a textual view is inlined into a model view, for example, the inlining of transformation code in the integration language view802is directly shown in the graphical model804. This transformation code can be textually changed in the graphical model shown in the integration model view804. This concept eases the usage of the views, for example, by removing the textual view for a special task and still allowing textual modification of the model/code at the same time.

FIG. 9illustrates a fourth example flexible monitor900, according to an implementation. The flexible monitor900illustrates the concept of the inlining of a model view with embedded code. Similar to the view inlining discussed above, complete concepts can be inlined. The flexible monitor900includes an integration language view902and an integration model view904where a model view is inlined into a textual view, for example, a form-field for configuration from the model is inlined into the textual view902, thus leading to a textual view with embedded form-based configuration elements. Hence, within the code, parts of the model are inlined and can be used seamlessly within the textual view.

FIG. 10illustrates a detailed conceptual overview1000of a complementary programming with associated data and components, according to an implementation. As will be discussed below, the components can be categorized by the definitions shown inFIG. 2. The conceptual overview1000can include the following components:A Textual Representation (T1) and a Semantic Model (M1) are two core representations of information from which the execution behavior can be derived and translated into an executable program. These representation can be categorized as Documents (D3).The Textual Representation (T1) is source code following syntactical rules defined by one or more Language Grammars (C1). T1 may also contain meta-information that is not needed for program execution (for example whitespaces, formatting).The Semantic Model (M1) is a model that can be derived from an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) (M2). The Semantic Model does not describe formatting and layouting meta-information, such as coordinates in a canvas or any visual information (colors, shapes, etc.).T1, M1 or both T1 and M1 can be information-complete, which means that from one representation alone an executable can be derived without the explicit need for existence of the other representation. Preferably, both representations M1 and T1 are information complete, as non-completeness of one model can restrict types of usages in tools working with the representations.An Execution Pipeline (EP) can execute a program based on the Text Model M3 and/or Semantic Model M1. An Execution Pipeline is restricted to run on an information-complete representation as the source for execution.Textual Tools (V1) can work with (read/modify) T1. An example of textual tools are text editors (for example vim, emacs, nodepad, sublime text) but also source version control systems (for example svn, git, perforce). Thus, on the textual representation level the legacy of tools for classic programming languages can be used (diff tools etc.). If T1 is not information-complete some textual tools might not be able to be used without harming synchronization (for example replace tools). V1 can be categorized as a View (D4).A Language Grammar (C1) defines rules (or constraints) how information is syntactically laid out in the text. From a Language Grammar, a Lexer/Parser (E1) can be generated with the help of a Parser Generator (G1). C1 can be categorized as D2.The Lexer/Parser (E1) extracts information from T1 and transforms it into an AST (M3), which is a model representation of the text derived from the information in the syntactic layout of T1. In this transformation step the formatting/whitespace meta-information may be lost. Actions executed in Textual Tools (V1) may notify the Lexer/Parser (E1) about change events of T1 to trigger partial or full (re-)parsing.Pretty Printer Constraints (C2) together with C1 describe how the information in M3 can be transformed into auto-formatted source code by adding the necessary meta-information. C2 describes conventional rules in classical languages, for example whitespace formatting, preferred cases for letters (such as CamelCase for class names) and also resolving syntactical ambiguities by defining rules for preferred alternatives. If in the target language x=x+1 is semantically equivalent to x+=1, then one of both syntaxes needs to be defined as the preferred alternative.Based on C1 and C2, a Pretty Printer Generator (G2) generates a Pretty Printer (E2) which is able to transform M3 into auto-formatted code (T1). By transforming T1 into M3 using E1 and transforming back from M3 to T1 using E2 on every change event in T1, all conventional rules in C2 are enforced in T1 (formatting constraint-enforcement).With the help of Bidirectional Transformation Constraints (C3) a Model Transformer (E3) can convert a M3 into a Semantic Model (M1) and vice-versa. If the Semantic Model (M1) is not information-complete the Model Transformer (E3) requires that the AST (M3) is constructed first. If in turn T1 is not information-complete, M1 needs to be available (information-complete).Graphical and UI Tools (V2) visualize/present the Semantic Model by using Layouting Constraints/Algorithms (C4) and allow changes to the model through actions triggered by the User. An example of such tools could be Graph-like Views or UI Forms. There can be multiple graphical views & presentations of the canonical model. V2 can be categorized as a View (D4).Graphical & UI Tools (V3) can optionally work on intermediate Transient Presentation Models (M4) that are projecting a partial-view on the information in M1 and kept in sync with M1. V3 can be categorized as a View (D4).The V1 and V2 tools can also be merged/combined together into Merged Textual & Graph Tools (V3), defining a new set of tools optimized to work simultaneously on both core representations T1 and M1, potentially by inlining tools from V1 into V2 and vice-versa.The Execution Pipeline (EP) can be either a compiler backend and execution pipeline (R2) (including Bytecode/Machinecode (T2) generation) or an interpreter runtime (R1). The EP may also include transient intermediate models/representations for optimization and optimized runtime selections. The runtime can be instrumented to push runtime execution information (categorized by D10) back to the editor tools using a textual Execution Log (T2) or a Runtime Model (M2) (for immediate visualization of execution). The Runtime Model can also be used to modify configuration and execution semantics ad-hoc during runtime from within the graphical tools (V2).

In some implementations, the system described inFIG. 10can react on changes in the core representations T1 and M1. For example, the following steps can be performed when a user modifies using Textual Tool (V1) and propagate change event to Graphical Tool (V2):1. A user adds statement to a method in a code to (“social-adapter:test”) in V1 on T1. On every keystroke an onChangeEvent is thrown.2. For every change event E1 is triggered to (incrementally) (re-)parse T1. On syntactical errors an error event is propagated back to V1. On successful parsing of T1 M3 is modified with elements for the “to” statement and the string literal. A M3 modification event is thrown.3. E2 executes on M3 change events and unparses the to statement with enforced formatting (using C2 constraints) to to (“social-adapter:test”). A change event is triggered to V1.4. V1 is updated with the auto-formatted statement in T1.5. E3 reacts on the M3 change event and transforms the changes into M1 model elements for a “social receiver adapter”. M1 is changed by executing C3 constraints.6. V2 tools react on change event in M1 and present new “social receiver adapter” in graph view.7. M1 is interpreted and executed by R1 on change event of M1.8. Runtime information during execution is added to T2 and M2 and presented to the user.

As another example, the following steps can be performed when a user modifies using Textual Tool (V1) and propagate change event to Graphical Tool (V2):1. A user adds a “social receiver adapter” element into the integration graph view in V2.2. V2 updates the semantic model M1 with the change. A change event is thrown to E3 and R1.3. M1 is interpreted and executed by R1 on change event.4. Runtime information during execution is added to T2 and M2 and presented to the user.5. E3 transforms model change in M1 to a to (“social-adapter:test”) textual model in M3.6. E2 reacts on change in M3 and unparses changed element in M3 and modifies T1. Change event is thrown to V1.7. V1 updates view on T1 and presents added statement to (“social-adapter:test”) in the code.

FIG. 11illustrates views1100for Flurp, according to an implementation.FIG. 11shows the following views for Flurp: T1 for source code1106, M1 for model1102, M2 for runtime model1110, and T2 for runtime log1108, which are linked and sinked as shown in the figure. The reactiveness characteristic is defined between the visual and textual representations of the model, for example, enforced through a semantic model1104(not visible). The runtime model visualization as well as the runtime log are only set unidirectional in this example. Setting them as “bi-directionally synchronized link” means that ad-hoc change in the runtime would immediately be reflected in the model and textual views.

FIG. 12illustrates a concrete realization of a flexible monitor1200for Flurp, according to an implementation. As shown in the figure, a connection to the backend (runtime bindings) can be handled using a semantic model, which uses (parser) handlers to visualize runtime-related views (for example, only showing an AST. The runtime view can be any graphical model that allows an insight into the domain (for example, a call graph of the current program). This can be complemented by a runtime log, which shows a textual representation of events that occurred during the execution.

In the illustrated example, the textual view/editor implementation1202uses a Java Script library (for example, Ace.js), whose code is executed in a browser runtime1204(for example, FIREFOX, CHROME, SAFARI, INTERNET EXPLORER, etc.). A graphical model is visualized using a JAVASCRIPT library1206(for example, d3.js). This is bridged by a semantic model intermediator1208that ensures the bi-directional mapping using a graph library (for example, graphlib). Changes in the textual editor1202lead to: (a) events to a handler1210that updates the related views (for example, user interface (UI)) and (b) sends code/model using a bi-directional connection1212(for example, a WebSocket) to a backend1214(for example, in this case JAVA). The backend1214executes code/model and returns code, model, and runtime results using the bi-directional connection1212to a correct UI instance. These results are forwarded to the handler1210, which displays the runtime results as log1216, and the model as runtime view1218(for example, using d3.js). Code or model changes in the backend1214(from runtime) might be passed to the semantic model1208, which then decides on updating the textual editor1202and the visualization/graphical model. In this way, code changes can impact current modeling and textual representations.

FIG. 13illustrates a realization of backend services1300for Flurp, according to an implementation. Code execution is either performed directly in the browser (if the browser supports the language, for example, JavaScript) or sent to the backend. In both cases, output is captured and displayed in the text log or in the runtime view. When a connector receives a message, it determines what to do with it, for example, determining the input language of the message and whether to execute or display the message. The message then invokes the language runtime for the code and runs it. Output is redirected to an aggregator, which sends it back to the web application. In the illustrated implementation, a frontend1302is abstracted and sends requests and receives responses using a bi-directional connection (for example, seeFIG. 12, element1212). The focus lies on the backend, which more concretely implements a connector1304(for example, using Apache Camel) to establish the bi-directional connection. Code/model received from a UI is executed by the runtime1306, which can include a multitude of possible runtime systems (for example, JAVA1308a, SQL for Databases1308b, and APACHE CAMEL for runtime graph language1308c, etc.). The runtime model and log results are then aggregated by an aggregator1310(for example, implemented in APACHE CAMEL) and forwarded to the frontend1302using the bi-directional connection1304. Data received from the frontend1302(for example, code or model) can be visualized in a view in the backend and potentially modified before executing.

FIG. 14is a flowchart of an example method1400for complementary model-driven and textual development using enforced formatting constraints, according to an implementation. For clarity of presentation, the description that follows generally describes method1400in the context of the other figures in this description. However, it will be understood that method1400may be performed, for example, by any suitable system, environment, software, and hardware, or a combination of systems, environments, software, and hardware as appropriate. In some implementations, various steps of method1400can be run in parallel, in combination, in loops, or in any order.

At1402, a complementary editor receives data from a network-capable device, for example, an IoT device collecting temperature data as in the example ofFIG. 4. From1402, method1400proceeds to1404.

At1404, the complementary editor opens a code view showing textual source codes. From1404, method1400proceeds to1406.

At1406, the complementary editor decides which other views to show. For example, as shown inFIG. 6, besides a code view, the complementary editor can also include a model view showing a visual graphical model, a log view showing log data at runtime, and a runtime view. From1406, method1400proceeds to1408.

At1410, changes are made in a particular view of the complementary editor. From1410, method1400proceeds to1412.

At1412, the changes made in the particular view are propagated to other affected views in the complementary editor. For example, as shown inFIG. 8, any code change made in the integration model view will immediately change the code in the integration language code view. Similarly, inFIG. 6, any code change made in the code view will immediately affect the log view such that the runtime log data shown in the log view are based on the updated code. From1412, method1400proceeds to1414.

At1414, propagated changes are received in each particular view of the other views. In some implementations, formatting constraints are enforced prior to propagating changes to other views—in other words the received propagated changes are formatted and can be displayed in an appropriate view. The formatting constraints may include textual constraints and model constraints as discussed above. In this case, method1400proceeds to1418. In other implementations, method1400proceeds to1416.

At1416, the received propagated changes are transformed in each of the other views using the above-described formatting constraints. From1416method1400proceeds to1418.

At1418, the transformed propagated changes are initiated for display in each of the other views to reflect the changes made in1410. After1418, method1400stops.

Note that the provided method1400is just one possible example. In other implementations, method1400can be started at other views in the flow. For example, using data received from a device, directly with a model/graphical view, in a textual mode view, etc. As another example, referring to back toFIG. 11, a user can work in the code-textual view1106which will affect the runtime visual view1110, semantic model-invisible view1104and the visualization-graphical view1102. Similar is true if say the user is working in the visualization-graphical view1102. As previously explained, method1400allows changing of views instantly, and change on view can be immediately propagated to all other affected views. In some implementations, changes can be propagated to data supporting views that are not yet opened so that opening the affected view presents in immediately updated view for the user. As will be understandable to those of ordinary skill in the art, the illustrated flow for method1400can take many forms consistent with this disclosure. These other forms are considered to be within the scope of this disclosure.

The computer1502can serve in a role as a client, network component, a server, a database or other persistency, or any other component (or a combination of roles) of a computer system for performing the subject matter described in the instant disclosure. The illustrated computer1502is communicably coupled with a network1530. In some implementations, one or more components of the computer1502may be configured to operate within environments, including cloud-computing-based, local, global, or other environment (or a combination of environments).

The computer1502can receive requests over network1530from a client application (for example, executing on another computer1502) and respond to the received requests by processing the said requests in an appropriate software application. In addition, requests may also be sent to the computer1502from internal users (for example, from a command console or by other appropriate access method), external or third-parties, other automated applications, as well as any other appropriate entities, individuals, systems, or computers.

Each of the components of the computer1502can communicate using a system bus1503. In some implementations, any or all of the components of the computer1502, both hardware or software (or a combination of hardware and software), may interface with each other or the interface1504(or a combination of both) over the system bus1503, using an application programming interface (API)1512or a service layer1513(or a combination of the API1512and service layer1513). The API1512may include specifications for routines, data structures, and object classes. The API1512may be either computer-language independent or dependent and refer to a complete interface, a single function, or even a set of APIs. The service layer1513provides software services to the computer1502or other components (whether or not illustrated) that are communicably coupled to the computer1502. The functionality of the computer1502may be accessible for all service consumers using this service layer. Software services, such as those provided by the service layer1513, provide reusable, defined business functionalities through a defined interface. For example, the interface may be software written in JAVA, C++, or other suitable language providing data in extensible markup language (XML) format or other suitable format. While illustrated as an integrated component of the computer1502, alternative implementations may illustrate the API1512or the service layer1513as stand-alone components in relation to other components of the computer1502or other components (whether or not illustrated) that are communicably coupled to the computer1502. Moreover, any or all parts of the API1512or the service layer1513may be implemented as child or sub-modules of another software module, enterprise application, or hardware module without departing from the scope of this disclosure.

The computer1502includes an interface1504. Although illustrated as a single interface1504inFIG. 15, two or more interfaces1504may be used according to particular needs, desires, or particular implementations of the computer1502. The interface1504is used by the computer1502for communicating with other systems in a distributed environment, that are connected to the network1530(whether illustrated or not). Generally, the interface1504comprises logic encoded in software or hardware (or a combination of software and hardware) and operable to communicate with the network1530. More specifically, the interface1504may comprise software supporting one or more communication protocols associated with communications such that the network1530or interface's hardware is operable to communicate physical signals within and outside of the illustrated computer1502.

The computer1502includes a processor1505. Although illustrated as a single processor1505inFIG. 15, two or more processors may be used according to particular needs, desires, or particular implementations of the computer1502. Generally, the processor1505executes instructions and manipulates data to perform the operations of the computer1502and any algorithms, methods, functions, processes, flows, and procedures as described in the instant disclosure.

The computer1502also includes a memory1506that holds data for the computer1502or other components (or a combination of both) that can be connected to the network1530(whether illustrated or not). For example, memory1506can be a database storing data consistent with this disclosure. Although illustrated as a single memory1506inFIG. 15, two or more memories may be used according to particular needs, desires, or particular implementations of the computer1502and the described functionality. While memory1506is illustrated as an integral component of the computer1502, in alternative implementations, memory1506can be external to the computer1502.

The application1507is an algorithmic software engine providing functionality according to particular needs, desires, or particular implementations of the computer1502, particularly with respect to functionality described in this disclosure. For example, application1507can serve as one or more components, modules, applications, etc. Further, although illustrated as a single application1507, the application1507may be implemented as multiple applications1507on the computer1502. In addition, although illustrated as integral to the computer1502, in alternative implementations, the application1507can be external to the computer1502.

There may be any number of computers1502associated with, or external to, a computer system containing computer1502, each computer1502communicating over network1530. Further, the term “client,” “user,” and other appropriate terminology may be used interchangeably, as appropriate, without departing from the scope of this disclosure. Moreover, this disclosure contemplates that many users may use one computer1502, or that one user may use multiple computers1502.

For example, in a first implementation, a computer-implemented method includes opening, by a complementary editor, a plurality of views; receiving changes in a particular view of the plurality of views; propagating the received changes to other views of the plurality of views other than the particular view; receiving the propagated changes in each particular view of the other views; transforming by a computer, the propagated changes in each particular view based on formatting constraints associated with each particular view; and initiating display of the transformed propagated changes in each particular view.

A first feature, combinable with any of the following features, further comprising: receiving data from a network-capable device; opening a code view; determining other views of the plurality of views other than the code view to open; and opening the other views in the complementary editor.

A second feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the formatting constraints include textual constraints and model constraints.

A third feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the plurality of views include at least a code view, a graphical model view, and a log view, and the method further comprises: updating software code in the code view; updating a model in the graphical model view, and displaying runtime log data in the log view based on the updated software code.

A fourth feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the plurality of views include at least a code view and a model view, and the method further comprising: inlining software code from the code view into the model view; embedding executable runtime code into other views; changing the inlined software code in the model view; and updating corresponding software code in the code view based on the changed inlined code in the model view

A fifth feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the complementary editor includes a textual representation and a semantic model.

A sixth feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein at least one of the textual representation and a semantic model includes complete information to derive an executable program.

In a second implementation, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising: opening, by a complementary editor, a plurality of views; receiving changes in a particular view of the plurality of views; propagating the received changes to other views of the plurality of views other than the particular view; receiving the propagated changes in each particular view of the other views; transforming the propagated changes in each particular view based on formatting constraints associated with each particular view; and initiating display of the transformed propagated changes in each particular view.

A first feature, combinable with any of the following features, further comprising: receiving data from a network-capable device; opening a code view; determining other views of the plurality of views other than the code view to open; and opening the other views in the complementary editor.

A second feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the formatting constraints include textual constraints and model constraints.

A third feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the plurality of views include at least a code view, a graphical model view, and a log view, and the method further comprises: updating software code in the code view; updating a model in the graphical model view, and displaying runtime log data in the log view based on the updated software code.

A fourth feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the plurality of views include at least a code view and a model view, and the method further comprising: inlining software code from the code view into the model view; embedding executable runtime code into other views; changing the inlined software code in the model view; and updating corresponding software code in the code view based on the changed inlined code in the model view.

A fifth feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the complementary editor includes a textual representation and a semantic model.

A sixth feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein at least one of the textual representation and a semantic model includes complete information to derive an executable program.

In a third implementation, a computer system comprises: a computer memory; and a hardware processor interoperably coupled with the computer memory and configured to perform operations comprising: opening, by a complementary editor, a plurality of views; receiving changes in a particular view of the plurality of views; propagating the received changes to other views of the plurality of views other than the particular view; receiving the propagated changes in each particular view of the other views; transforming the propagated changes in each particular view based on formatting constraints associated with each particular view; and initiating display of the transformed propagated changes in each particular view.

A first feature, combinable with any of the following features, further configured to perform operations comprising: receiving data from a network-capable device; opening a code view; determining other views of the plurality of views other than the code view to open; and

opening the other views in the complementary editor.

A second feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the formatting constraints include textual constraints and model constraints.

A third feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the plurality of views include at least a code view, a graphical model view, and a log view, and the method further comprises: updating software code in the code view; updating a model in the graphical model view, and displaying runtime log data in the log view based on the updated software code.

A fourth feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the plurality of views include at least a code view and a model view, and the method further comprising: inlining software code from the code view into the model view; embedding executable runtime code into other views; changing the inlined software code in the model view; and updating corresponding software code in the code view based on the changed inlined code in the model view.

A fifth feature, combinable with any of the previous or following features, wherein the complementary editor includes a textual representation and a semantic model, and wherein at least one of the textual representation and a semantic model includes complete information to derive an executable program.