Patent Publication Number: US-7225430-B2

Title: Software code management method and apparatus

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates generally to methods and apparatus for managing files within computer systems. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and apparatus which are used to detect, confirm, record, and report the use of designated incorrect or improper software codes, such as library files, by various application programs within a computer system. 
     BACKGROUND INFORMATION 
     As technology advances, computers provide increasingly useful and rapid service to their users. Much of the advantage provided by computers, however, arises as a derivative of the increased processing speed, that is, the ability to run larger and more complex programs. Of course, many tasks performed by a computer, such as clearing a display of graphics, connecting to a network, etc. are repetitive. Thus, one method of simplifying the job of programming is to re-use software routines as much as possible. As software continues to evolve, then, and programs become more complex, increasing reliance is placed on the re-use and recycling of various modules which support application program operations. Software modules or subroutines which are routinely used by other programs are often grouped into a single program file, known as a “library”. 
     Using the Microsoft Windows™ Operating System (hereinafter “Windows™”) as a well-known example, it is understood by those skilled in the art that a popular library file type can be recognized in a file listing by the appended designation characters “DLL”. Those who formulate these dynamic link library files, or “DLL files” often intend that they be used by many different programs. However, just as for any other type of software, DLL files are subject to constant improvement and upgrades. And, as is also the case for most other software, upgrades for DLL files are typically published under a new version number. 
     For example, an application program might make use of a DLL file having the name “testlibrary.dll”. This library may be published, upon initial release, with a version number of “1.0”. Minor upgrades or changes to Version 1.0 might in turn be published with a version number of “1.05” or “1.1”, and would include small revisions to improve the function of the program, or possibly to correct minor flaws in operational functionality. Major changes will usually be accompanied by greater changes in the version number, such as “2.0” or “3.1”. Thus, by tracking the version number attached to any particular software code or library, it is possible to gain an idea as to whether the most recent version of software is being used. More important, observing the version number attached to the software code will also give information as to whether the correct version of the code is being used. 
     Most software application programs make use of auxiliary software codes, including libraries, such as the exemplary DLL files described above. One of the most common problems when using such software codes is loading an improper version of the code by the application software, which may occur in several different ways. For example, one application may load one version of a DLL file, while another instance of the same application loads a different version of the same DLL file. Alternatively, a single application might load a DLL file version that differs from a previously-loaded version. Either occurrence might cause the application to perform erroneously. Thus, in each case, the application has loaded an improper version of the auxiliary software code. This problem usually arises after an end user, unaware of the specific interaction between a particular program and its associated auxiliary software codes, attempts to improve his system by “upgrading” to the latest version of an application program. Either the application expects to use a newer version of the auxiliary code in question, or upgrading to a particular auxiliary code may clash with other application software that has been modified to operate with a previous version of the code. In any event, incorrect answers, unexpected operations, or even catastrophic failure may result. 
     Computer systems have historically been rather poor at alerting the system administrator and/or end user as to the root cause of such problems. Thus, determining the cause is often a time-intensive and costly exercise. Unfortunately, the frequency of occurrence for such problems increases with the growing number of application programs attempting to use (or re-use) commonly-available auxiliary software codes, such as, for example, the DLL files provided for use with Windows™. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  is a flow chart diagram of a method for managing the use of software codes by an application program according to the teachings of the present invention; 
         FIG. 2A  is a conceptual diagram of an exemplary database and its content which may be used to determine the existence of conflicts caused by the use of software codes; 
         FIG. 2B  is a flow chart diagram illustrating procedures which may be used to configure the database shown in  FIG. 2A ; 
         FIG. 3  is a flow chart diagram illustrating additional procedures which may be used to detect the use of software codes by an application program according to the teachings of the present invention; 
         FIG. 4  is a flow chart diagram illustrating additional procedures which may be used to identify the application using software codes according to the teachings of the present invention; 
         FIG. 5  is a flow chart diagram illustrating additional procedures which may be used to confirm a conflict regarding the use of software codes by an application program according to the teachings of the present invention; 
         FIG. 6  is a flow chart diagram illustrating additional procedures which may be used to report the use of software codes by an application program according to the teachings of the present invention; and 
         FIG. 7  is a schematic block diagram of a computer workstation and computer system network constructed according to the teachings of the present invention. 
     
    
    
     DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
     In the following detailed description of the preferred embodiments, reference is made to the accompanying drawings which form a part hereof, and in which are shown by way of illustration, and not of limitation, specific embodiments in which the invention may be practiced. In the drawings, like numerals describe substantially similar components or procedures throughout the several views. The embodiments illustrated are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the invention. Other embodiments may be utilized and derived therefrom, such that structural, logical, and electrical circuit substitutions and changes may be made without departing from the scope of the invention. The following detailed description, therefore, is not to be taken in a limiting sense, and the scope of the invention is defined only by the appended claims, along with the full range of equivalents to which such claims are entitled. 
     The present invention is useful for managing the use of software codes by application programs. The methods and apparatus disclosed herein offer the opportunity to record information surrounding the use of, for example, incorrect versions of software codes, including the identity and location of the application which is using or has loaded the incorrect code, the location and version of the code actually used or loaded, and the location and version of the code that should properly have been used or loaded. These methods and apparatus also allows selecting various parties, such as the end user, computer operator, system administrator, and other chosen parties, to receive reports of the recorded information. 
     According to the teachings of the present invention, a method and apparatus for managing the use of a software code by a selected application program are disclosed. The method includes detecting an instance of using the code, identifying the application program that is using the code, confirming a conflict between the code and the application, and reporting the conflict to one or more selected parties. 
     Confirmation of the conflict usually occurs with the assistance of a database, whose content typically includes several selected application programs and corresponding correct software codes which are appropriate for use by each of the selected application programs. Thus, for example, whenever an inappropriate version of a software code is loaded by one of the application programs identified in the database, the use will be confirmed, and the type of conflict will be determined and reported. If desired, the conflict can also be corrected. This method, along with the machine-accessible medium, the workstation, and the networked computer system which embody the method, make it possible to consistently manage the proper use of software codes by various application programs. Therefore, single workstation users and system administrators alike can be informed in a timely fashion when incorrect versions of such codes are being used by selected application programs. 
     For the purposes of this document, a “software code” is any set of executable instructions, or a set of software subroutines, similar to or identical to a DLL file, which can be loaded into a computer memory under the direction of an application program. A software code may be in the form of source code or object code. An “improper software code” may be defined in several different ways, as will be described below. In general, however, an improper software code is any software code other than that which is specified (either directly or indirectly) by the system administrator as being a proper or acceptable software code to be used by a particular software application program. Thus, while there may be nothing wrong with the improper software code in and of itself, it is deemed an “improper” software code simply because someone (usually the system administrator) designates another version of the software code, for example, as the correct and proper software code which should be used by a particular application program. Of course, as will be described more fully below, automated methods may also be used to determine the proper software codes for use with selected application programs. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 1 , a flow chart diagram of a method for managing the use of software codes by an application program according to the teachings of the present invention can be seen. The method  100  begins with configuring a database in block  110 . The database, described in greater detail below, typically includes a list of one or more selected application programs, along with, for example, a corresponding list of designated acceptable or “proper” software codes which may be used by each of the application programs. This particular database configuration thus defines any software code loaded or used by the application programs included in the database which is not listed as one of the designated acceptable or proper software codes for that particular application program, as an “improper software code”. Other definitions are also possible, as will be described below. 
     The method continues with detecting the use of a software code in decision block  130 , which typically means monitoring the loading and/or execution of some selected type of software code. As will be explained in more detail below, detection can be accomplished in several different ways. However, once the use of a selected software code module or type is detected, the method continues on to block  140 , where the application using the code is identified. Until use of a selected software code type is detected, the method pauses at decision block  130 . 
     After the application program that is using the software code (i.e., “using” generally understood to mean effecting operations such as loading, executing, or calling for the execution of the software code) is identified in block  140 , then the method continues at decision block  150  with confirming whether a conflict exists between the application program and the software code using it. If no conflict exists, then the method returns to decision block  130 , pausing until another use of a software code is detected. 
     If a conflict exists, as determined at decision block  150 , then the method continues onward to block  180 , wherein the conflict is reported, usually to the operator of the computer executing the application program identified in block  140 , or to the system administrator responsible for configuring the database. The report may be accompanied by an alarm. After reporting the conflict in block  180 , the method returns to block  130 , pausing until another use of a software code is detected. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 2A , a conceptual diagram an exemplary database and its content which may be used to confirm the existence of conflicts caused by the use of improper software codes can be seen. As noted above, the database  220  typically includes entries for several application programs in column  222 , such as Application  226 , Application 2   227 , and other selected applications, such as ApplicationN  228 . Corresponding to each of the applications in column  222  may be several software codes understood to be defined as “proper” software codes in column  224 . Each entry in column  224  may, for example, take the form of a list of one or more library files corresponding to each of the selected application programs  226 ,  227 , and  228 . 
     As shown in  FIG. 2A , for example, the proper software codes corresponding to Application 1  (i.e., those software codes which may be properly loaded, executed, or “used” in any other fashion by Application 1 ) may be designated as: Code 1 , Code 2 , and Code 3 . Similarly, the proper software code corresponding to Application 2  may be designated as Library 1 . Finally, the proper software codes corresponding to ApplicationN may be designated as Library 1  through LibraryN. In each case, corresponding to each one of the selected application programs  226 ,  227 , and  228 , one or more acceptable or proper software codes may be designated for use by the application program without creating a conflict. 
     It should also be noted that the database  220  may also include some form of further identifying information for the software codes, such as version numbers. For example, a shown in  FIG. 2A , the complete identification of proper software codes corresponding to Application 1  might be designated as: Code 1 , Version 1.0; Code 2 , Version 1.2; and Code3, Version 1.3. Similarly, designated as corresponding to Application 2  might be Library 1 , Version 1.0 or Version 2.1 (in this case, for example, either version of Library 1  may be used with Application  2  without creating a conflict); and corresponding to ApplicationN might be designated Library 1 , Version 1.5 through LibraryN, Version N. 
     While not shown explicitly in the database  220 , each of the selected application programs  222 , as part of the designation “Application 1 ”, “Application 2 ”, and “ApplicationN” may also be identified by a version number, a date, a filename, a file size, or any other information desired, such that, for example, two versions of a selected application program may each have database entries and corresponding proper (and different) software codes, as determined by the system administrator. 
     As mentioned above, the invention provides several ways to designate or define an “improper software code”. One definition has already been used in conjunction with  FIGS. 1 and 2 , that is, an improper software code may be designated as such if it is not included in a particular list of one or more approved software codes which may be properly used by a selected application program. Another definition includes the reverse of what has been previously described. That is, the system administrator may also define or designate an improper software code as any code which is included in the database  220 . Thus, any software code entered into the database and used by a listed application program would then be considered an “improper software code”, creating a conflict. Any other software codes used by the listed application programs (i.e., not entered into the database  220  as corresponding to the selected application program) would be considered “proper” software codes, and create no conflict. 
     Another possible procedure used to define or designate improper software codes is accomplished by using further identifying information. For example, an optional database column  225  may be used to contain defining information for every software code, such as a letter “P” for a proper software code  219 , and an “I” for an improper software code  229 . 
     To summarize some of the possible ways that a system administrator may define improper software codes then, one may consider that if column  225  does not exist in the database  220 , the administrator may have defined all software codes in the database as proper software codes, and any software codes used by the applications in column  222  which do not match the specified software codes in column  224  thus represent a conflict. Alternatively, those skilled in the art will realize that the absence of column  225  may also be used by an administrator to define all software codes included in column  224  as “improper” software codes, such that any software codes used by the applications specified in column  222  that fail to match the software codes specified in column  224  for the selected application in column  222  are proper software codes. Thus, only the use of software codes specified in column  224  will result in a conflict in that case. Finally, if column  225  is present in the database  220 , the system administrator may designate each software code as either “P” for “proper” or “I” for improper, and assume all other software codes not listed in column  224  of the database and used by the applications listed in column  222  are either improper, or proper, as desired. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 2B , a flow chart diagram illustrating a procedure which may be used to configure the database  220  can be seen. For example, configuring the database  220  may include obtaining information relating to one or more of the application programs  222  (and corresponding software codes  224 ) in a non-automated fashion, as noted in block  212 . Thus, a system administrator, computer operator, end user, or Independent Software Vendor (ISV) may manually enter a list of the selected applications  222  into the database  220 , along with the corresponding list of software codes  224 . 
     Alternatively, as noted in block  214 , one or more of the application programs  222  may be associated with an executable code that is amenable to examination, such that determination of the correct database  220  entries  222 ,  224  can be effected by automated examination of the executable code. After automated examination of the executable codes for selected applications  222 , for example, the information returned regarding corresponding software codes  224 , such as the correct versions of DLL files, can then be entered into the database, manually, or by using an automated routine. 
     Another possibility for entering data regarding the selected applications  222  and corresponding software codes  224 , as noted in block  216 , includes using a snapshot of the installation activity required for one or more of the selected application programs. Thus, as an application is automatically installed into a computer workstation or networked computer system, a record of the various software codes installed along with the application program can be recorded, and the record used as the input to another automated routine for populating the database  220  with the desired information  222 ,  224 . Of course, such information  222 ,  224  can also be entered into the database  220  in a non-automated fashion. 
     Finally, another alternative for entering the information  222 ,  224  into the database  220  includes automated examination of a system resident installation package, such as a Microsoft™ Software Installer (MSI) software package, to determine the identity of various applications  222  and software codes  224 , followed by non-automated (or automated) entry of the information  222 ,  224  into the database, as denoted in block  218 . After any or all of these blocks  212 ,  214 ,  216 , and  218  may be used to configure the database  220  by populating it with one or more selected applications  222  and corresponding software codes  224 , the method continues with block  130  (see  FIG. 1 ), waiting for the detection of software code use. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 3 , a flow chart diagram illustrating additional procedures which may be used to detect the use of software codes by an application program according to the teachings of the present invention can be seen. Detecting use of an software code in block  330  may include, for example, enabling detection of the use of a particular software code, such as a specific subroutine or software module, or enabling detection of the use of a selected subset of software code types, such as DLL files, as noted in block  332 . This also includes enabling detection of library loading operations by a selected application program. 
     Enabling detection of software code use (e.g., enabling detection of a software library loading operation) in block  332  may occur in several ways, such as by enlisting the aid of a monitoring program or function. As noted in block  334 , for example, one way to tap into a computer messaging stream might be to use a “hook” function, assuming that the selected application program operates under Windows™. Creating a hook function inserts a function into the Windows™ message handling chain. Once installed, the hook function can monitor messages, and even alter them. System-wide hook functions can intercept all messages that enter a system. Application-specific hook functions allow interception only of messages directed at a specified window or application. 
     Continuing with the example of hook functions, when using an application-specific hook, it is possible to select various categories of messages that the hook will receive. For example, it is possible to insert a hook that receives only keyboard messages. It is also possible to receive all messages associated with an application. Windows™ implements hooks by maintaining a pointer to each hook function that has been installed in the system. Each hook function is called automatically thereafter by the operating system when a message relating that hook occurs in the input stream. As noted in block  336 , execution of the Windows™ LoadLibrary( ) and LoadLibraryEx( ) function calls, for example, typically used to load DLL files by application programs running under Windows™, can be intercepted by setting a software hook activated by the library loading operation. This can be accomplished using the software hook functions set up in block  334 , as is well-known to those skilled in the art. Thus, every time a DLL file is loaded by an application program, for example, if the proper hook has been set, the method will be able to detect use of a DLL file. After use of the software code has been detected, the method continues with identifying the application making use of the code in block  140  (see  FIG. 1 ). 
     It should be noted that Windows™ and software hook functions are merely used herein as examples, and not by way of limitation, due to the widespread use and familiarity in industry with this particular operating system and its functions. Those skilled in the art will realize that other monitoring functions, which operate similarly to or identically to hook functions, can be devised and used within other operating systems to detect the use of particular types, classes, or subsets of software codes, so that the procedures of the present invention may be effected thereby. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 4 , a flow chart diagram illustrating additional procedures which may be used to identify the application using software code according to the teachings of the present invention can be seen. For example, as noted in block  442 , identifying the selected application program in block  440  may include determining the file name of the application program. In addition, the selected application program may also be identified by determining its application version number, as noted in block  444 . The selected application program may also be identified using any of the other information stored in the database, as noted above, and other information, such as the name, location, and/or configuration of the computer system executing the application program. After the selected application program is identified, confirmation as to whether a conflict exists may occur in block  150  (see  FIG. 1 ). 
     A conflict exists when the software code used by one or more applications is inconsistent with the usage rules set forth in the database by the system administrator, as described in detail above. For example, conflicts may occur when two instances of the same selected application make use of a different version of a software code, such as a DLL file. Conflicts may also occur when the same application makes use of a different version of a software code than was previously used. And, as noted above by example, a conflict may occur when an application makes use of a software code not listed in the database, and whose use is therefore forbidden. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 5 , a flow chart diagram illustrating additional procedures which may be used to confirm a conflict regarding the use of improper software code by an application program according to the teachings of the present invention can be seen. Thus, confirming a conflict between a selected application program and an improper software code, as noted in block  550 , may include determining whether the identified selected application is included in the database in block  552 . If so, then a determination is made as to whether the software code used by the application has also been entered into the database in block  554 . If so, then a final determination is made as to whether the software code is the same as one or more proper software code entries for the selected application program (i.e., the detected software code database entry should correspond to the database entry for the identified selected application program in this case). If so, there is no conflict, and the method returns to block  130 , waiting until the use of a software code is again detected. 
     If the conflict is that the identified application is not located in the database, for example, as determined in block  552 , then the method may determine whether these circumstances are always to be reported in block  558 . If so, then the type of conflict may be noted in block  560  (e.g., “Application currently executing and making use of a software code is not entered in the database.”), and reported in block  180  (see  FIG. 1 ). If no report is needed, as determined in block  558 , then the method may include entering the identified application into the database, along with the identity of the software code being used by the application, as noted in block  564 . The end user, system administrator, or other selected parties may also be notified of the existence of a new database entry in block  564 . At this point, the method may continue with block  130  (see  FIG. 1 ), pausing to detect the use of another software code. The procedures of blocks  558  and  564  may be useful, for example, in the context of an automated system which configures the database, and thereafter detects and reports the occurrence of conflicts between previously executed applications and their historical use of software codes. 
     If the conflict is that the software code is not in the database, but the application has an entry, for example, as determined in block  554 , then this type of conflict can also be noted in block  560  (e.g., “Application currently executing is entered in the database, but the software code used is not entered in the database.”), and reported in block  180  (see  FIG. 1 ). If the software code is not the correct code, but has an entry in the database, as does the application, as determined in block  556 , then the particular type of conflict can be determined in block  562 . This may include, as noted above, two instances of the same selected application operating while using a different version of the software code, the same application operating while using a different version of a software code than was previously used, or an application operating while using a forbidden software code. The type of conflict is then noted in block  560  (e.g., “Application currently executing is entered in the database, but the software code used is not historically accurate.”), and reported in block  180  (see  FIG. 1 ). 
     In summary, confirming a conflict between the improper software code and the selected application program may be as simple as determining that the improper software code is not the same as the proper software code corresponding to the application, as entered in the database. This may be discovered, for example, by determining that the proper software code has a version number which differs from the version number associated with the improper software code. The procedures required to make this discovery may include determining the version number of the proper software code and the version number of the improper software code, and comparing the version number of the proper software code to the version number of the improper software code. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 6 , a flow chart diagram illustrating additional procedures which may be used to report the use of improper software code by an application program according to the teachings of the present invention can be seen. Thus, reporting the conflict in block  680  may include alerting one or more selected parties, such as by messaging the system administrator or the end user, or by sending a message to the video display or terminal associated with the executing application program, or even by sending out an electronic mail message to the current user and all past users of the application program in block  682 . Reporting the conflict may also include activating an audio, tactile, or visual alarm in block  684 . After reporting (and possibly alarming) the conflict, the method continues with block  130  (see  FIG. 1 ), pausing to detect the use of another software code. 
     It will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the embodiments shown in  FIGS. 1–6  illustrate several different ways of implementing the novel method of managing, such as by detecting, confirming, and reporting use of an improper software code by an application program. The invention, embodied in a method, includes detecting an instance of using the code, identifying the application program using the code, confirming a conflict between the code and the application, and reporting the conflict. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand upon reading this description that the method of the present invention can be used in applications other than those outlined with respect to the exemplary database described above, and indeed, using components of databases other than application program file names and DLL file names and version numbers, and thus, the invention is not to be so limited. The illustrations of methods and an exemplary database in  FIGS. 1–6  are intended to provide a general understanding of some applications which may be served by the present invention, and are not intended to serve as a complete description of all the elements and features of methods which make use of the novel mechanism for managing use of improper software codes described herein. 
       FIGS. 1–6  are similarly useful in presenting the application of hardware which may be constructed according to the teachings of the present invention. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that various circuits, apparatus, and systems may be assembled and used in accordance with the methods described in the various figures. Applications which may embody the novel management mechanism for use of improper software codes as described in this document include electronic circuitry and software used in high-speed computers, arrays of memory modules and other circuit cards, device drivers, communication circuitry, modems, processor modules, memory integrated circuits, embedded processors, set-top clients, networked client-server systems, and application-specific modules, including multilayer, multi-chip modules. Such circuitry and software may further be included as sub-components within a variety of electronic systems, such as televisions, cellular telephones, personal computers, aircraft, and others. To further clarify such use, several embodiments of circuitry, apparatus, and systems constructed according to the teachings of the present invention will now be specifically illustrated. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 7 , a machine-accessible medium, a schematic block diagram of a computer workstation, and a schematic block diagram of a computer system network constructed according to the teachings of the present invention can be seen. The computer workstation  790 , which may be a stand alone computer, such as a personal computer, may include a processor module  792  and a machine-accessible medium (such as a Random Access Memory (RAM), Programmable Read Only Memory (PROM), a hard disk, or a removable floppy disk/CD-ROM in a disk drive)  791  communicatively coupled to the processor module  792 . The machine-accessible medium  791  may include instructions stored thereon, for example, as embodied by one or more software modules  793 ,  794 ,  796 ,  797 ,  798 , and a database  720 , capable of causing the processor module  792  to perform the method of managing use of a software code by a selected application program, as shown and described in  FIGS. 1–6 . That is, the method performed by the processor module  792 , which may be a software program module or a hardware module, such as a microprocessor, typically includes the procedures of detecting use of a software code, identifying the selected application program that is using the software code, confirming a conflict between the software code and the selected application program, and reporting the conflict. In  FIG. 7 , all of the modules, which may be hardware, firmware, or software program modules, or a combination of these, may include a Process Monitoring Component (PMC)  796 , a Conflict Monitoring Component (CMC)  797 , and an Alerting/Reporting Module (A/RM)  798 . 
     Using the example of Windows™ as an operating system, the PMC  796  can be used to hook CreateProcess calls (to determine when a new application program is loaded), and/or LoadLibrary and LoadLibraryEx function calls, which are typically used to load DLL files, as described above. Thereafter, whenever the PMC  796  detects software code use, the PMC  796  will notify the CMC  797  that a file  794  (e.g., a DLL file) has just been loaded, including desired information about the application or process  793  loading the file  794  and the location of the file  794  being loaded. 
     The CMC  797  may then use the information obtained from the PMC  796  to determine the version of the file  794  which has been loaded. The version can then be checked against the approved version entered into the database  720 , for example, to confirm that a conflict exists, as described with respect to  FIG. 5 . If there is a conflict, a report can be made using the user console  775  associated with the application program  793 , via the interface  799 , and/or an alert can be activated using the A/RM  798  as explained with regard to the process illustrated by  FIG. 6 . 
     In addition, the CMC  797 , which may be notified whenever a file (application program and/or software code) is loaded, can be used to record every instance of file loading activity to build a historical database  720  in an automated fashion, obviating the need for manual data entry, as described above. Of course, the database  720  may also be configured by any of the methods described with respect to  FIGS. 2A and 2B , being similar to or identical to the database  220 . Thus, those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that the computer workstation  790 , in conjunction with the processor module  792  and the machine-accessible medium  791 , is capable of performing each and every activity outlined in  FIGS. 1–6 , and described herein, with regard to the method and teachings of the present invention. 
     Similarly, the teachings of the present invention may also be embodied in a computer system network  795 , including a server  790  and one or more clients  770 ,  772  communicatively coupled to the server  790 , perhaps using a company-wide intranet  776 , or a global communications network  776 . In this case, execution of a selected application program, such as AppX  771 , may be initiated by the client  770 , instead of the server  790 . Similarly, execution of another selected application program, such as AppY  773 , may be initiated by the client  772 . The applications in this case may reside on either the clients  770 ,  772 , or the server  790  (e.g., the applications  793 ). In any case, the server includes a processor module  792 , and a machine-accessible medium  791  communicatively coupled to the processor module  792 . The machine-accessible medium  791  has instructions stored thereon capable of causing the processor module  792  to perform the method of managing use of an improper software code (which may reside within the server  790  or clients  770 ,  772 ) by the selected application program. As noted with respect to the computer workstation  790 , the server  790  and computer system network  795  are also capable of performing each and every activity outlined in  FIGS. 1–6 , and described herein, with regard to the method and teachings of the present invention. 
     Thus, the present invention provides novel methods, machine-accessible media, computer workstations, and computer system networks to manage use of improper computer codes by selected application programs. Such methods and apparatus provide the ability to detect, record, and report information surrounding the use of such improper software codes, such as the identity and location of the application loading an incorrect version of a software code, the location and version of the code actually loaded, and the location and version of the code that should properly have been loaded. The results of such reporting can be made selectively available to the application end user, computer operator, the system administrator, and other chosen parties, using local screen displays and/or global messaging. The method, along with the machine-accessible medium, the workstation, and the networked computer system which embody the method, make it possible to consistently manage the use of software codes (such as the exemplary DLL files described previously) by various application programs, providing timely information to single workstation users and system administrators alike. 
     Although specific embodiments have been illustrated and described herein, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that any arrangement which is calculated to achieve the same purpose may be substituted for the specific embodiments shown. These applications are intended to cover any and all adaptations or variations of the present invention. It is to be understood that the above description has been made in an illustrative fashion, and not a restrictive one. Combinations of the above embodiments, and other embodiments not specifically described herein will be apparent to those of skill in the art upon reviewing the above description. The scope of the invention includes any other applications in which the above methods and structures are used. Therefore, the scope of the invention should be determined with reference to the appended claims, along with the full range of equivalents to which such claims are entitled.