DOCSLIB.ORG

Extracting Library-Based Object-Oriented Applications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Extracting Library-Based Object-Oriented Applications Extracting Library-Based Object-Oriented Applications Peter F. Sweeney Frank Tip IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA pfs@ us.ibm.com [email protected] ABSTRACT s Modem objec~oriented applications typically rely on one or more independently developed class libraries. In an increasingly popular model of software distribution, software is developed in one computing environment and de- With the advent of virtual machine technology~ library ployed in other environments by transfer over the internet. code is amenable to the same analyses as application code, because the same representation is used in each Extraction tools perform a static whole-program analysis to determine unused functionality in applications in order case. When an application is distributed separately from the libraries it depends upon, an extraction tool to reduce the time required to download applications. We have identified a number of scenarios where extraction tools needs to be aware of the boundary between the two. require information beyond what can be inferred through • Different kinds of software distributions (e.g.,complete static analysis: software distributions other than complete applications, web-based applications that execute in applications, the use of reflection, and situations where an the context of a browser, and extensible frameworks) application uses separately developed class libraries. This have different sets of entry points, and require the paper explores these issues, and introduces a modular spec- application extractor to make different assumptions ~cation language for expressing the information required about the deployment environment. In fact, the same for extraction. We implemented this language in the con- unit of software may even play different roles, depend- text of Jax, an industrial-strength application extractor for ing on the deployment scenario. Jaw, and present a small ease study in which different ex- traction scenarios are applied to a commercially available s The use of dynamic features such as reflection I poses library-based application. additional problems for extraction tools, because a static analysis alone is incapable of detern~inlng the program constructs that are used, and hence the program con- 1. INTRODUCTION structs that can be removed. In an increasingly popular software distribution model, software is developed in one computing environment, and • There are also some interesting interactions between deployed in other environments by transfer over the inter- the above issues. For example, consider a situation net. Because the time required to transfer an application is where an application A is to be distributed together generally proportional to the transferred number of bytes, with an independently developed class library L in it becomes important to make applications as small as pos- which reflection is used. In general, the use of re- sible. Application extractor8 are tools that reduce appli- flection in L may depend on the features in L that cation size by determining unused functionality that can be are used by A. We will discuss how this observation removed from the application without affecting program be- affects extraction. havior. Each of these issues requires information that cannot be ob- Previously~ extractors have been designed primarily with complete applications in mind. Such whole-application ex- tained using static analysis alone, and has to be provided to the extraction tool by the user. This paper explores the tractors require one to specify an application's entry point(s), above issues in detail, and provides a uniform solution in and rely on a static whole-program analysis to determine the form of a small, modular specification language MEL functionality that can be removed without affecting program (Modular Extraction Language) for prodding the informa- behavior. However, the extraction of software distributions other than complete applications raises several issues: tion required to extract various kinds of programs. MEL's features are essentially language-independent, with the ex- ception of some Java-speci~c syntax used to refer to program Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for constructs such as classes, methods and fields. In order to personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advan- validate our approach, we implemented MEL in the context tage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. of Jax, an industrial-strength application extractor for Jav~ To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to developed at IBM Research [18]. We discuss how several of redistribute to listS, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. SIGSOFT 2000 (FSE-8) 11/00 San Diego, CA, USA IFor convenience, we will henceforth use the term 'Yel]ec- © 2000 ACM ISBN 1-58113-205-010010011._$5.00 tion" to refer to all mechanisms for loading and accessing program constructs by specifying their name as a string value, and for examining program structure. 98 the program transformations and optimizations performed for the extraction of A itself. If we want to accommodate by Jax are adapted to take into account MP.L scripts, and scenarios where v obtains a different version s of L, then the present a small case study in which different extraction sce- extractor should derived Aez t from A without making as- narios are applied to a commercially available library-based sumptions about the specific version of L that happens to Java application. be available in a's development environment. The standard The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Jav~ libraries are an obvious example of this situation. Section 2, we present the requirements on extraction tools We will now investigate the issues related to the use of in the presence of class library usage. Section 3 introduces reflection. In essence, reflection allows one to access a pro- a specification language for defining the extraction of vari- gram construct by specifying a run-time string value that ous kinds of library-based applications. Section 4 presents represents the construct's name, and to examine the struc- a mechanism for translating specifications to a small set of ture of the classes used in a program. Such features are assertions. Section 5 discusses an implementation of MEL, problematic for extraction tools because, in general, a static and reports on a small case study. Section 6 summarizes analysis cannot determine which program constructs are ac- related work, and Section 7 presents conclusions and direc- cessed using reflection, and should therefore not be removed tions for future work. or transformed. Thus, extractors require additional informa- tion from the user that specifies which program constructs 2. REQUIREMENTS are accessed using reflection. In our experience, determining the program constructs that may be accessed using reflec- In this section, we analyze a number of frequently occur- tion is a fairly easy task for a programmer familiar with the ring distribution scenarios, and determine what information code. However, it can be quite difficult to determine how is required by extraction tools beyond what can be obtained reflection is used in third-party libraries, especially if the through static analysis, source code for these libraries is unavailable. In the exam- ple of Figure 1, the extraction of ALezt from A and L by 2.1 Distribution scenarios application vendor a requires additional information about Figure I shows several distribution scenarios that may oc- the use of reflection in L. This can be difficult to determine cur in the presence of: a library vendor I responsible for cre- from distribution Lez t alone, because it does not contain the ating and distributing a class library L, an application ven- source code for the library. To complicate matters further, dor a responsible for creating and distributing an L-based the set of program constructs in L accessed using reflection application A, and two users, u and v, of application A. may depend on the features in L that are used by A. In It is reasonable to assume that library vendor l will want general, different L-based applications may cause different to make library L ms small as possible, in order to reduce usage of reflection within L. Our solution to these problems the download times experienced by customers, but also to (discussed in detail below) will he to have library vendor reduce the load of the server from which the library is down- l distribute a script along with Lez t that contains the in- loaded. Hence, I creates an eztracted version Lez t of L, and formation required to extract any L-based application. Our distributes Lez t instead of L. Clearly, Lez t should offer the scripts allow I to specify that a program construct is only ac- same functionality as L, but size-reducing optimizations can cessed using reflection under certain conditions (e.g., when still be applied to parts of L that are not exposed to users. a certain method is reachable). Application vendor a presumably downloads Lez t for use We have only discussed a few example distribution sce- during development of application A. When application A narios. Other likely scenarios include: is ready for distribution, there are two options, depending on whether or not a user already has the prerequisite library • Extracting a library together with multiple applica- L installed. Figure I shows a user u who does not have (the tions that use it. correct version of) L. Assuming that u does not expect to download or create other L-based applications, it is desir- • Extracting a library in the context of another library able for u to download a distribution ALez t that comprises that uses it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Opencobol Manual for Opencobol 2.0
    OpenCOBOL Manual for OpenCOBOL 2.0 Keisuke Nishida / Roger While Edition 2.0 Updated for OpenCOBOL 2.0 26 January 2012 OpenCOBOL is an open-source COBOL compiler, which translates COBOL programs to C code and compiles it using GCC or other C compiler system. This manual corresponds to OpenCOBOL 2.0. Copyright c 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 Keisuke Nishida Copyright c 2007-2012 Roger While Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copy- right notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the condi- tions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice maybe stated in a translation approved by the Free Software Foundation. i Table of Contents 1 Getting Started :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 1.1 Hello World!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 2 Compile :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2 2.1 Compiler Options ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2 2.1.1 Help Options ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2 2.1.2 Built Target ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    [Show full text]
  • Static Typing Where Possible, Dynamic Typing When Needed: the End of the Cold War Between Programming Languages
    Intended for submission to the Revival of Dynamic Languages Static Typing Where Possible, Dynamic Typing When Needed: The End of the Cold War Between Programming Languages Erik Meijer and Peter Drayton Microsoft Corporation Abstract Advocates of dynamically typed languages argue that static typing is too rigid, and that the softness of dynamically lan- This paper argues that we should seek the golden middle way guages makes them ideally suited for prototyping systems with between dynamically and statically typed languages. changing or unknown requirements, or that interact with other systems that change unpredictably (data and application in- tegration). Of course, dynamically typed languages are indis- 1 Introduction pensable for dealing with truly dynamic program behavior such as method interception, dynamic loading, mobile code, runtime <NOTE to="reader"> Please note that this paper is still very reflection, etc. much work in progress and as such the presentation is unpol- In the mother of all papers on scripting [16], John Ousterhout ished and possibly incoherent. Obviously many citations to argues that statically typed systems programming languages related and relevant work are missing. We did however do our make code less reusable, more verbose, not more safe, and less best to make it provocative. </NOTE> expressive than dynamically typed scripting languages. This Advocates of static typing argue that the advantages of static argument is parroted literally by many proponents of dynami- typing include earlier detection of programming mistakes (e.g. cally typed scripting languages. We argue that this is a fallacy preventing adding an integer to a boolean), better documenta- and falls into the same category as arguing that the essence of tion in the form of type signatures (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic C++ Classes a Lightweight Mechanism to Update Code in a Running Program
    The following paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference (NO 98) New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1998 Dynamic C++ Classes A lightweight mechanism to update code in a running program Gísli Hjálmtÿsson AT&T Labs - Research Robert Gray Dartmouth College For more information about USENIX Association contact: 1. Phone: 510 528-8649 2. FAX: 510 548-5738 3. Email: [email protected] 4. WWW URL:http://www.usenix.org/ Dynamic C++ Classes A lightweight mechanism to update code in a running program Gísli Hjálmtýsson Robert Gray AT&T Labs – Research Thayer School of Engineering1 180 Park Avenue Dartmouth College Florham Park, NJ 07932 Hanover, NH 03755 [email protected] [email protected] has transformed many industries, continuous change has Abstract become just as important as continuous operation. Techniques for dynamically adding new code to a run- Rapid introduction of new functionality and dynamic ning program already exist in various operating sys- adaptation to volatile needs is essential. Systems, par- tems, programming languages and runtime environ- ticularly telecommunications systems, must be custom- ments. Most of these systems have not found their way ized on a very fine time scale, either due to user demand 1 into common use, however, since they require pro- or to load and usage fluctuations. grammer retraining and invalidate previous software An effective way to allow both continuous operation investments. In addition, many of the systems are too and continuous change is through dynamic code up- high-level for performance-critical applications. This dates. New code is added to a running program without paper presents an implementation of dynamic classes halting the program, thus introducing new functionality for the C++ language.
    [Show full text]
  • Reprogramming Embedded Systems at Run-Time
    Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Sensing Technology, Sep. 2-4, 2014, Liverpool, UK Reprogramming Embedded Systems at Run-Time Richard Oliver, Adriana Wilde IEEE(S) and Ed Zaluska SMIEEE Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, United Kingdom {rjo2g10,agw106,ejz}@ecs.soton.ac.uk Abstract—The dynamic re-programming of embedded systems is load mechanisms. This paper aims to address the problem of a long-standing problem in the field. With the advent of wireless dynamic reprogramming of such systems, and will offer sensor networks and the ‘Internet of Things’ it has now become comparison and a critical appraisal of the methods currently necessary to be able to reprogram at run-time due to the being used in the field. difficulty of gaining access to such systems once deployed. The issues of power consumption, flexibility, and operating system The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. protections are examined for a range of approaches, and a Section II explains code execution on embedded devices, critical comparison is given. A combination of approaches is section III discusses various existing methods, focusing on the recommended for the implementation of real-world systems and issues of power consumption, flexibility of approach, and OS areas where further work is required are highlighted. protection. Section IV follows with conclusions and suggests future work in the area. Keywords-Wireless sensor networks; Programming; Runtime, Energy consumption II. BACKGROUND I. INTRODUCTION This section will cover the execution of code on microcontrollers. This is typically of no concern when flashing Embedded systems are pervasive in the modern world, a static image to a microcontroller but a greater understanding being found in systems as widely ranging as fridges, cars, is required to implement dynamic code loading.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Development of Certified OS Kernels Prof
    Advanced Development of Certified OS Kernels Zhong Shao (PI) and Bryan Ford (Co-PI) Department of Computer Science Yale University P.O.Box 208285 New Haven, CT 06520-8285, USA {zhong.shao,bryan.ford}yale.edu July 15, 2010 1 Innovative Claims Operating System (OS) kernels form the bedrock of all system software—they can have the greatest impact on the resilience, extensibility, and security of today’s computing hosts. A single kernel bug can easily wreck the entire system’s integrity and protection. We propose to apply new advances in certified software [86] to the development of a novel OS kernel. Our certified kernel will offer safe and application-specific extensibility [8], provable security properties with information flow control, and accountability and recovery from hardware or application failures. Our certified kernel builds on proof-carrying code concepts [74], where a binary executable includes a rigorous machine-checkable proof that the software is free of bugs with respect to spe- cific requirements. Unlike traditional verification systems, our certified software approach uses an expressive general-purpose meta-logic and machine-checkable proofs to support modular reason- ing about sophisticated invariants. The rich meta-logic enables us to verify all kinds of low-level assembly and C code [10,28,31,44,68,77,98] and to establish dependability claims ranging from simple safety properties to advanced security, correctness, and liveness properties. We advocate a modular certification framework for kernel components, which mirrors and enhances the modularity of the kernel itself. Using this framework, we aim to create not just a “one-off” lump of verified kernel code, but a statically and dynamically extensible kernel that can be incrementally built and extended with individual certified modules, each of which will provably preserve the kernel’s overall safety and security properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Specialising Dynamic Techniques for Implementing the Ruby Programming Language
    SPECIALISING DYNAMIC TECHNIQUES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE RUBY PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences 2015 By Chris Seaton School of Computer Science This published copy of the thesis contains a couple of minor typographical corrections from the version deposited in the University of Manchester Library. [email protected] chrisseaton.com/phd 2 Contents List of Listings7 List of Tables9 List of Figures 11 Abstract 15 Declaration 17 Copyright 19 Acknowledgements 21 1 Introduction 23 1.1 Dynamic Programming Languages.................. 23 1.2 Idiomatic Ruby............................ 25 1.3 Research Questions.......................... 27 1.4 Implementation Work......................... 27 1.5 Contributions............................. 28 1.6 Publications.............................. 29 1.7 Thesis Structure............................ 31 2 Characteristics of Dynamic Languages 35 2.1 Ruby.................................. 35 2.2 Ruby on Rails............................. 36 2.3 Case Study: Idiomatic Ruby..................... 37 2.4 Summary............................... 49 3 3 Implementation of Dynamic Languages 51 3.1 Foundational Techniques....................... 51 3.2 Applied Techniques.......................... 59 3.3 Implementations of Ruby....................... 65 3.4 Parallelism and Concurrency..................... 72 3.5 Summary............................... 73 4 Evaluation Methodology 75 4.1 Evaluation Philosophy
    [Show full text]
  • Linkers and Loaders Do?
    Linkers & Loaders by John R. Levine Table of Contents 1 Table of Contents Chapter 0: Front Matter ........................................................ 1 Dedication .............................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 Who is this book for? ......................................................................... 2 Chapter summaries ............................................................................. 3 The project ......................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................ 5 Contact us ........................................................................................... 6 Chapter 1: Linking and Loading ........................................... 7 What do linkers and loaders do? ............................................................ 7 Address binding: a historical perspective .............................................. 7 Linking vs. loading .............................................................................. 10 Tw o-pass linking .............................................................................. 12 Object code libraries ........................................................................ 15 Relocation and code modification .................................................... 17 Compiler Drivers .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Using the Go Programming Language in Practice
    MASTER’S THESIS | LUND UNIVERSITY 2014 Using the Go Programming Language in Practice Fredrik Pettersson, Erik Westrup Department of Computer Science Faculty of Engineering LTH ISSN 1650-2884 LU-CS-EX 2014-19 Using the Go Programming Language in Practice Erik Westrup Fredrik Pettersson <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> June 5, 2014 Master’s thesis work carried out at Axis Communications AB for the Department of Computer Science, Lund University. Supervisors: Jonas Skeppstedt <[email protected]> Mathias Bruce <[email protected]> Robert Rosengren <[email protected]> Examiner Jonas Skeppstedt Abstract When developing software today, we still use old tools and ideas. Maybe it is time to start from scratch and try tools and languages that are more in line with how we actually want to develop software. The Go Programming Language was created at Google by a rather famous trio: Rob Pike, Ken Thompson and Robert Griesemer. Before introducing Go, the company suffered from their development process not scaling well due to slow builds, uncontrolled dependencies, hard to read code, poor documenta- tion and so on. Go is set out to provide a solution for these issues. The purpose of this master’s thesis was to review the current state of the language. This is not only a study of the language itself but an investigation of the whole software development process using Go. The study was carried out from an embedded development perspective which includes an investigation of compilers and cross-compilation. We found that Go is exciting, fun to use and fulfills what is promised in many cases.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evil Copy: How the Loader Betrays You
    An Evil Copy: How the Loader Betrays You Xinyang Ge Mathias Payer Trent Jaeger Microsoft Research Purdue University The Pennsylvania State University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Dynamic loading is a core feature used on current the value that is being written. Despite significant investment in systems to (i) enable modularity and reuse, (ii) reduce memory bug finding techniques, memory corruption is still an important footprint by sharing code pages of libraries and executables problem, as 745 individual CVEs for 2015 and 692 CVEs for among processes, and (iii) simplify update procedures by elim- 2016 are reported. While not all these vulnerabilities allow an inating the need to recompile executables when a library is attacker to compromise a system with arbitrary code execution, updated. The Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) is a generic many do. specification that describes how executable programs are stitched together from object files produced from source code to libraries Without any defense, attackers inject and execute code to and executables. Programming languages allow fine-grained con- trol over variables, including access and memory protections, so take control of a system through memory corruption vulner- programmers may write defense mechanisms assuming that the abilities. Over the past decade, a set of defense mechanisms permissions specified at the source and/or compiler level will hold have been deployed on commodity systems. Data execution at runtime. prevention [5] is a common defense that enforces code in- tegrity. Code integrity prohibits an attacker from injecting new Unfortunately, information about memory protection is lost code into a running process and is usually enforced by hard- during compilation.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Dynamic Object Model Within Unix Processes
    Published at Onward! 2015. Towards a Dynamic Object Model within Unix Processes Stephen Kell Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge Cambridge, United Kingdom fi[email protected] Abstract Historically, the earliest Lisp and Smalltalk virtual ma- Programmers face much complexity from the co-existence chines (VMs) were conceived to eventually supplant Unix- of “native” (Unix-like) and virtual machine (VM) “man- like operating systems. For good or ill, this hasn’t happened: aged” run-time environments. Rather than having VMs re- their descendents today (including Java VMs) nearly al- place Unix processes, we investigate whether it makes sense ways occur within a Unix-like process. Although VMs’ in- for the latter to “become VMs”, by evolving Unix’s user- ternal uniformity can simplify many tasks, interoperating level services to subsume those of VMs. We survey the (little- with the wider world (including other VMs) remains an in- understood) VM-like features in modern Unix, noting com- evitable necessity—yet is a second-class concern to VM mon shortcomings: a lack of semantic metadata (“type in- implementers. The apparent abstraction gap between VMs formation”) and the inability to bind from objects “back” and the Unix “common denominator” leaves a wealth of to their metadata. We describe the design and implementa- programming tasks addressable only by manual or ad-hoc tion of a system, liballocs, which adds these capabilities in means: sharing code via brittle foreign function interfacing, a highly compatible way, and explore its consequences. sharing data (whether in memory or persistently) by manual translation between formats, and making do with a hodge- Categories and Subject Descriptors D.3.4 [Programming podge of per-silo tools for debugging, profiling and the like.
    [Show full text]
  • Pynamic Summary
    Pynamic See https://asc.llnl.gov/CORAL-benchmarks/ for examples of benchmark summary files and platform-specific problem sets Summary Version 1.0 Purpose of Benchmark Pynamic was developed to influence the design of the dynamic loading subsystem on large machines and to test its ability to handle the intensive use of dynamically-linked libraries, as often exhibited by large Python-based scientific applications. Running sequentially (i.e., a single MPI task), this benchmark measures how quickly the dynamic loader can load the configured number of dynamic libraries into a process, resolve all the symbols in these libraries, and execute all the routines defined in them. Running in parallel, it also captures how scalably the relevant subsystem can handle large numbers of file system operations that the dynamic loader requires. The scalable use of file systems during dynamic loading is critically important for large machines: when many parallel processes in a Python-based application simultaneously load dynamic Python modules, a file-system-access storm can be created, leading to unacceptably slow performance and further having an effect similar to a site-wide denial-of-service attack on the file systems where these modules reside. Characteristics of Benchmark Pynamic is a benchmark that generates a user-specified number of Python dynamic modules and utility libraries objects to emulate a wide range of dynamic linking and loading behavior exhibited by Python-based scientific programs. The benchmark can be run in parallel using either pyMPI (http://pympi.sourceforge.net) or mpi4py (http://mpi4py.scipy.org/) and can be tested in several modes. For example, in one mode, Pynamic directly links in all these modules at link time, creating the pynamic-pyMPI executable.
    [Show full text]
  • Installation for Z/OS
    Natural Installation for z/OS Version 9.1.1 April 2019 Dieses Dokument gilt für Natural ab Version 9.1.1. Hierin enthaltene Beschreibungen unterliegen Änderungen und Ergänzungen, die in nachfolgenden Release Notes oder Neuausgaben bekanntgegeben werden. Copyright © 1979-2019 Software AG, Darmstadt, Deutschland und/oder Software AG USA, Inc., Reston, VA, USA, und/oder ihre Tochtergesellschaften und/oder ihre Lizenzgeber. Der Name Software AG und die Namen der Software AG Produkte sind Marken der Software AG und/oder Software AG USA Inc., einer ihrer Tochtergesellschaften oder ihrer Lizenzgeber. Namen anderer Gesellschaften oder Produkte können Marken ihrer jeweiligen Schutzrechtsinhaber sein. Nähere Informationen zu den Patenten und Marken der Software AG und ihrer Tochtergesellschaften befinden sich unter http://documentation.softwareag.com/legal/. Diese Software kann Teile von Software-Produkten Dritter enthalten. Urheberrechtshinweise, Lizenzbestimmungen sowie zusätzliche Rechte und Einschränkungen dieser Drittprodukte können dem Abschnitt "License Texts, Copyright Notices and Disclaimers of Third Party Products" entnommen werden. Diese Dokumente enthalten den von den betreffenden Lizenzgebern oder den Lizenzen wörtlich vorgegebenen Wortlaut und werden daher in der jeweiligen Ursprungsprache wiedergegeben. Für einzelne, spezifische Lizenzbes- chränkungen von Drittprodukten siehe PART E der Legal Notices, abrufbar unter dem Abschnitt "License Terms and Conditions for Use of Software AG Products / Copyrights and Trademark Notices of Software AG Products". Diese Dokumente sind Teil der Produktdokumentation, die unter http://softwareag.com/licenses oder im Verzeichnis der lizenzierten Produkte zu finden ist. Die Nutzung dieser Software unterliegt den Lizenzbedingungen der Software AG. Diese Bedingungen sind Bestandteil der Produkt- dokumentation und befinden sich unter http://softwareag.com/licenses und/oder im Wurzelverzeichnis des lizenzierten Produkts.
    [Show full text]