Model-driven derivation of product architectures

ABSTRACT

Product Derivation is one of the central activities in Software Product Lines (SPL). One of the main challenges of the process of product derivation is dealing with complexity, which is caused by the large number of artifacts and dependencies between them. Another major challenge is maximizing development efficiency and reducing time-to-market, while at the same time producing high quality products. One approach to overcome these challenges is to automate the derivation process. To this end, this paper focuses on one particular activity of the derivation process; the derivation of the product-specific architecture and describes how this activity can be automated using a model-driven approach. The approach derives the product-specific architecture by selectively copying elements from the product-line architecture. The decision, which elements are included in the derived architecture, is based on a product-specific feature configuration. We present a prototype that implements the derivation as a model transformation described in the Atlas Transformation Language (ATL). We conclude with a short overview of related work and directions for future research

REFERENCES

• 1: ATL Home page. http://www.eclipse.org/m2m/atl/
• 2: xADL 2.0. http://www.isr.uci.edu/projects/xarchuci/
• 3: Software product lines: practices and patterns, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2001
• 4: Czarnecki, K. and Antkiewicz, M. Mapping Features to Models: A Template Approach Based on Superimposed Variants. GPCE'05. 422--437.
• 5: Czarnecki, K. and Eisenecker, U. W. Generative programming. Addison-Wesley, 2000.
• 6: Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S. and Eisenecker, U. Formalizing Cardinality-based Feature Models and their Specialization. Software Process Improvement and Practice (Best papers from SPLC04), 10 (1). 7--29.
• 7: Hassan Gomaa, Designing Software Product Lines with UML: From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures, Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 2004
• 8: L. Hotz , K. Wolter , T. Krebs, Configuration in Industrial Product Families: The ConIPF Methodology, IOS Press, Inc., 2006
• 9: Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W. and Peterson, S. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990.
• 10: OMG. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, 2005. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/05-07-04
• 11: Klaus Pohl , Günter Böckle , Frank J. van der Linden, Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, 2005
• 12: pure-systems GmbH Variant Management. http://www.pure-systems.com/Variant_Management.49.0.html
• 13: SAE The SAE AADL Standard Info Site. http://www.aadl.info/
• 14: Wagelaar, D. MDE Case Studies, 2007. http://ssel.vub.ac.be/ssel/research:mdd:casestudies

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.13 Reusable Software
            Subjects: Domain engineering

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.11 Software Architectures
            Subjects: Languages (e.g., description, interconnection, definition)
        D.2.13 Reusable Software
            Subjects: Reuse models
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques
          Subjects: Computer-aided software engineering (CASE)

Keywords:
ATL, model transformation, model-driven approaches, product derivation, software architectures, software product lines