Violatility analysis framework for product lines

ABSTRACT

Evolution of a software intensive system is unavoidable. In fact, evolution can be seen as a part of reuse process. During the evolution of the software asset, the major part of the system functionality is normally reused. So the key issue is to identify the volatile parts of the domain requirements. Additionally, there is promise that tailored tool support may help supporting evolution in software intensive systems. In this paper, we describe the volatility analysis method for product lines. This highly practical method has been used in multiple domains and is able to express and estimate common types of evolutional characteristics. The method is able to represent volatility in multiple levels and has capacity to tie the volatility estimation to one product line member specification. We also briefly describe current tool support for the method. The main contribution of this paper is a volatility analysis framework that can be used to describe how requirements are estimated to evolve in the future. The method is based on the definition hierarchy framework.

REFERENCES

• 1: M. m. Lehman, Software's Future: Managing Evolution, IEEE Software, v.15 n.1, p.40-44, January 1998 [doi>10.1109/MS.1998.646878]
• 2: M. M. Lehman, Software engineering, the software process and their support, Software Engineering Journal, v.6 n.5, p.243-258, Sept. 1991
• 3: Dewayne E. Perry, Dimensions of Software Evolution, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, p.296-303, September 01, 1994
• 4: Juha Kuusela , Juha Savolainen, Requirements engineering for product families, Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, p.61-69, June 04-11, 2000, Limerick, Ireland [doi>10.1145/337180.337189]
• 5: Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, S., Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, November 1990.
• 6: Software Productivity Consortium, Reuse-Driven Software Processes Guidebook, Version 02.00.03, November 1993.
• 7: Software Productivity Consortium, Reuse Adoption Guidebook, Version 02.00.05, November 1993.
• 8: Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems (STARS). Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook, V. 2.0. Tech Rep STARS-VC-A025/001/00
• 9: Mark A. Ardis , David M. Weiss, Defining families: the commonality analysis (tutorial), Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering, p.649-650, May 17-23, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/253228.253772]
• 10: M. L. Griss , J. Favaro , M. d' Alessandro, Integrating Feature Modeling with the RSEB, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse, p.76, June 02-05, 1998
• 11: James O. Coplien, Multi-paradigm design for C++, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1998
• 12: David M. Weiss , Chi Tau Robert Lai, Software product-line engineering: a family-based software development process, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1999
• 13: Kuusela, J., Savolainen, J., How to Use Requirements and Properties of Existing Products as a Guide in Implementing a Product Family, OOSA'98 In Proc. of the ECOOP'98 on Object-Oriented SW Architectures, Report of Univ. Karlskrona/Ronneby, ISRN HK/R-RES-98/13-SE, 1998,
• 14: ESAPS System-family Engineering Glossary, 2000.
• 15: Bashar Nuseibeh , Jeff Kramer , Anthony Finkelstein, A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specification, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.20 n.10, p.760-773, October 1994 [doi>10.1109/32.328995]
• 16: Earl F. Ecklund, Jr. , Lois M. L. Delcambre , Michael J. Freiling, Change cases: use cases that identify future requirements, Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, p.342-358, October 06-10, 1996, San Jose, California, United States
• 17: Anssi Karhinen , Juha Kuusela, Structuring Design Decisions for Evolution, Proceedings of the Second International ESPRIT ARES Workshop on Development and Evolution of Software Architectures for Product Families, p.223-234, February 26-27, 1998
• 18: Cohen, S., Stanley, J., Peterson, W., Krut, R., Application of Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis to the Army Movement Control Domain, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-91-TR-028, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, June1992.
• 19: A. D. Vici , N. Argentieri , A. Mansour , M. d' Alessandro , J. Favaro, FODAcom: An Experience with Domain Analysis in the Italian Telecom Industry, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse, p.166, June 02-05, 1998
• 20: Barry Keepence , Mike Mannion, Using Patterns to Model Variability in Product Families, IEEE Software, v.16 n.4, p.102-108, July 1999 [doi>10.1109/52.776957]
• 21: Joachim Bayer , Oliver Flege , Peter Knauber , Roland Laqua , Dirk Muthig , Klaus Schmid , Tanya Widen , Jean-Marc DeBaud, PuLSE: a methodology to develop software product lines, Proceedings of the 1999 symposium on Software reusability, p.122-131, May 21-23, 1999, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/303008.303063]
• 22: Don Batory , Lou Coglianese , Mark Goodwin , Steve Shafer, Creating reference architectures: an example from avionics, Proceedings of the 1995 Symposium on Software reusability, p.27-37, April 29-30, 1995, Seattle, Washington, United States
• 23: Clements, P., Northrop, L., A Framework for Software Product Line Practice - Version 2.0, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, July 1999.
• 24: Mark H. Klein , Rick Kazman , Leonard J. Bass , S. Jeromy Carrière , Mario Barbacci , Howard F. Lipson, Attribute-Based Architecture Styles, Proceedings of the TC2 First Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA1), p.225-244, February 22-24, 1999
• 25: Kazman, R., Klein, M., Clements, P., ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-2000- TR-004, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, August 2000.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.11 Software Architectures
            Subjects: Domain-specific architectures

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Measurement, Performance, Theory

Keywords:
commonality, domain analysis, evolution, product line, requirements engineering, variability, volatility analysis