Runtime Client UI Control Substitution via Binding

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In client/server systems, existing technologies lack the ability to efficiently modify user interface controls at runtime without requiring extensive knowledge of software intricacies or altering the entire user interface, limiting customization and flexibility.

Innovation Solution

The method involves rendering a graphical user interface with interchangeable controls, allowing users to select and map inputs and outputs through dialogue boxes, enabling the replacement or modification of individual controls while maintaining interaction with the server, without altering the server application.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If the entire user interface is modified to add new functionality, then the functionality is improved, but the complexity of modification and time required are increased

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovefunctionalityVSAvoidmodification complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The user interface is segmented into independent controls that can be individually replaced or modified. Each control is a separate component that can be exchanged without affecting other controls, allowing functionality to be improved by modifying only specific segments rather than the entire interface.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system allows dynamic replacement of controls at runtime based on user preferences or conditions. Controls can be exchanged during operation without requiring a complete redesign or recompilation of the application, enabling flexible adaptation while maintaining system stability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

2Adaptability or versatility

If the entire user interface is altered to add new functionality, then the functionality is improved, but the time required for modification is increased

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovefunctionalityVSAvoidmodification time

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

By dividing the interface into independent controls, only the specific control requiring functionality improvement needs to be modified or replaced, rather than the entire interface. This segmentation dramatically reduces the time required for modification.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Controls are designed to be pre-configured with standard interfaces and binding mechanisms, allowing them to be quickly exchanged and integrated without extensive setup time. The preliminary preparation of control components enables rapid replacement when functionality needs to be improved.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Adaptability or versatility

If source code editing is required to modify controls, then customization is achieved, but the ease of operation is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovecustomizationVSAvoidease of modification

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system provides self-service mechanisms for control customization through graphical user interface operations. Users can select, replace, and configure controls through dialog boxes and visual operations without needing to access or edit source code, making customization accessible to non-programmers.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

A binding mechanism serves as an intermediary between controls and the application logic. This binding layer allows controls to be replaced and customized through configuration rather than source code modification, while still maintaining proper integration with the application's data and functionality.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Adaptability or versatility

If controls are made interchangeable and modifiable at runtime, then flexibility is improved, but the stability of the user interface is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:

ImproveflexibilityVSAvoidinterface stability

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

All controls implement a universal interface and binding mechanism that allows them to be replaced while maintaining consistent behavior and integration. This universality ensures that regardless of which control is in use, the overall interface stability and application functionality remain consistent.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The binding mechanism provides feedback loops that ensure controls remain properly connected to application data and logic during runtime replacements. This feedback ensures that control exchanges maintain interface stability by verifying proper integration after each replacement.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS7861310B2Runtime modification of client user controls

Publication Date: 2010.12.28 SAP SE

AI summary

Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, for modifying a user interface of a client application. A method includes rendering a graphical user interface of a client application having a first and second control coupled to the client application, receiving user-generated input characterizing a request to modify the first control and a selection of a third control; exchanging the first control with the third control; rendering the graphical user interface of the client application as having the third control in lieu of the first control; receiving user-generated input characterizing interaction with the second control; and rendering the third control to reflect the interaction with the second control.