Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 161–174 | Cite as

Visualizing Flow Diagrams in WebSphere Studio Using SHriMP Views

  • Derek Rayside
  • Marin Litoiu
  • Margaret-Anne Storey
  • Casey Best
  • Robert Lintern


This paper describes the integration of an information visualization tool, called SHriMP Views, with IBM WebSphere Studio Application Developer Integration Edition, which was developed with Eclipse technology. Although SHriMP was originally developed for visualizing programs, it is content-independent. We have re-targeted SHriMP for visualizing flow diagrams. Flow diagrams, as supported by WebSphere Studio Application Developer Integration Edition, can be hierarchically composed, thus leveraging the key features of SHriMP that allow a user to easily navigate hierarchically composed information spaces. We discuss the differences between programs and flow diagrams, in terms of their semantics and their visual representation. We also report on the main technical challenges we faced, due to the different widget sets used by SHriMP (Swing/AWT) and Eclipse (SWT).

integration software engineering software visualization system modeling flow diagrams MOF XMI 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams G. External tool interoperability. Eclipse Newsgroups, June 2001. Available on Scholar
  2. Aldrich J, Chambers C, Notkin D. Architectural reasoning in ArchJava. In: ECOOP'02, 2002a, to appear.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich J, Chambers C, Notkin D. ArchJava: Connecting software architecture to implementation. In: ICSE'02, 2002b, to appear.Google Scholar
  4. Amsden J. Your first plug-in. Eclipse Article, June 2001. Available at Scholar
  5. Bacon DF. Fast and Effective Optimization of Statically Typed Object-Oriented Languages. PhD Thesis, UCB/CSD-98-1017, University of California at Berkeley, December 1997.Google Scholar
  6. Bacon DF, Sweeney PF. Fast static analysis of C++ virtual function calls. In: Coplien J, ed. Proceedings of ACM/SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), San Jose, CA, 1996:324-341.Google Scholar
  7. Best C, Storey M-A, Michaud J. Designing a component-based framework for visualization in software engineering and knowledge engineering. In: Ferrucci F, Vitiello G, eds. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), Ischia, Italy, July 2002, submitted.Google Scholar
  8. Böhm C, Jacopini G. Flow diagrams, turing machines and languages with only two formation rules. CACM 1966;9(5):366-371. Also Reprinted in Yourdon EN, ed. Classics in Software Engineering.Yourdon Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I. The Unified Modeling Language-User Guide. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. Casatti F, Ceri S, Pernici B, Pozzi G. Conceptual modeling of workflows. In: Advances in Object-Oriented Data Modeling.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. Coplien J (ed.). In: Proceedings of ACM/SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), San Jose, CA, October 1996.Google Scholar
  12. Dean J, Grove D, Chambers C. Optimization of object-oriented programs using static class hierarchy analysis. In: Olthoff W, ed. Proceedings of European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), Århus, Denmark, LNCS 952. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. Diwan A, Eliot J, Moss B, McKinley KS. Simple and effective analysis of statically-typed object-oriented programs. In: Coplien J, ed.Proceedings of ACM/SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), San Jose, CA, 1996:292-305.Google Scholar
  14. Harel D, Gery E. Executable object modeling with statecharts. IEEE Computer 1997;30(7):31-42.Google Scholar
  15. Holt R, Winter A, Sch¨urr A, Sim S. GXL: Towards a standard exchange format. In: Cifuentes C, Kontogiannis K, Balmas F, eds.WCRE'00, Brisbane, Australia, November 2000.Google Scholar
  16. IBM. FAQ about IBM's new tooling strategy and the future of VisualAge for Java. Available at vad.nsf/data/document2020.Google Scholar
  17. IBM. MQSI: Message queue system integrator. Available at Scholar
  18. IBM. WebSphere MQ integrator. Available at Scholar
  19. IBM. WebSphere studio application developer integration edition.Available at Scholar
  20. Irvine V. ActiveX support in SWT. Eclipse Article, March 2001.Available at Scholar
  21. Irvine V. Limitations of Swing/SWT experimental integration mechansim. Eclipse Newsgroups, July 2001. Available at Scholar
  22. Leyman F, Roller D. Work-flow based applications. IBM Systems Journal 1997;36(1):102-122.Google Scholar
  23. Litoiu M, Starkey M, Schmidt MT. Flow composition modeling with MOF. In: Proceedings of ICEIS'01, Setubal, July 2001.Google Scholar
  24. Martin J. Information Engineering Book III: Design and Construction.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. Martin J. Leveraging IBM VisualAge for C++ for reverse engineering tasks. In: MacKay SA, Howard Johnson J, eds. Proceedings of the 9th NRC/IBM Centre for Advanced Studies Conference (CASCON), Toronto, 1999:83-95.Google Scholar
  26. Martin J, Odell J. Object-Oriented Analysis and Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. Müller HA, Klashinsky K. Rigi-ASystem for Programming-in-thelarge.In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Raffles City, Singapore, 1988:80-86.Google Scholar
  28. Northover S. SWT: The standard widget toolkit. Eclipse Article, March 2001. Available on Scholar
  29. Northover S, MacLeod C. Creating your own widgets using SWT.Eclipse Article, March 2001. Available on http://www.eclipseorg/articles/.Google Scholar
  30. Object Management Group. Flow composition model. Available at Scholar
  31. Object Management Group (OMG). Meta object facility, 2000.Available on Scholar
  32. Object Management Group (OMG). XML metadata interchange (XMI), 2000. Available on Scholar
  33. Rayside D, Litoiu M, Storey M-A, Best C. Integrating SHriMP with the IBMWebSphere studio workbench. In: Howard Johnson J, Stewart DA, eds. Proceedings of the 11th NRC/IBM Centre for Advanced Studies Conference (CASCON), Toronto, 2001:79-93.Google Scholar
  34. Ross D. Structured analysis (SA): A language for communicating ideas. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1977;3(1):16-36.Google Scholar
  35. Storey M-A, Müller HA, Wong K. Manipulating and Documenting Software Structures, Singapore: World Scientific, 1996:244-263. Vol. 7 of the Series on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering.Google Scholar
  36. University of Maryland Human Computer Interaction Laboratory.JAZZ Zooming Library. Available on jazz/.Google Scholar
  37. University of Victoria. SHriMP Views Visualization Tool.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson M. Blocking SWT from a Swing dialog box. Eclipse Newsgroups, July 2001. Available on newsgroups/.Google Scholar
  39. Wu J, Storey M-A. A multi-perspective software visualization environment.In: Proceedings of the 10th NRC/IBM Centre for Advanced Studies Conference (CASCON), Toronto, 2000:41-50.Google Scholar
  40. Yourdon EN (ed.) Classics in Software Engineering. Yourdon Press, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek Rayside
    • 1
  • Marin Litoiu
    • 1
  • Margaret-Anne Storey
    • 2
  • Casey Best
    • 2
  • Robert Lintern
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM Toronto LaboratoryIBM Centre for Advanced StudiesCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of VictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations