Feature Location in Model-Based Software Product Lines Through a Genetic Algorithm

  • Jaime Font
  • Lorena Arcega
  • Øystein Haugen
  • Carlos Cetina
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9679)

Abstract

When following an extractive approach to build a model-based Software Product Line (SPL) from a set of existing products, features have to be located across the product models. The approaches that produce best results combine model comparisons with the knowledge from the domain experts to locate the features. However, when the domain expert fails to provide accurate information, the semi-automated approach faces challenges. To cope with this issue we propose a genetic algorithm to feature location in model-based SPLs. We have an oracle from an industrial environment that makes it possible to evaluate the results of the approaches. As a result, the proposed approach is able to provide solutions upon inaccurate information on part of the domain expert while the compared approach fails to provide a solution when the information provided by the domain expert is not accurate enough.

References

  1. 1.
    Affenzeller, M., Winkler, S., Wagner, S., Beham, A.: Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming: Modern Concepts and Practical Applications, 1st edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, T., Rublack, R., Nair, D., Atlee, J.M., Becker, M., Czarnecki, K., Wasowski, A.: A survey of variability modeling in industrial practice. In: 7th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS) (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis, L.: Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dit, B., Revelle, M., Gethers, M., Poshyvanyk, D.: Feature location in source code: a taxonomy and survey. J. Softw.: Evol. Process 25(1), 53–95 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Font, J. , Arcega, L., Haugen, Ø., Cetina, C.: Building software product lines from conceptualized model patterns. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line (SPLC), pp. 46–55 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Font, J., Ballarín, M., Haugen, Ø., Cetina, C.: Automating the variability formalization of a model family by means of common variability language. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line (SPLC), pp. 411–418 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guo, J., White, J., Wang, G., Li, J., Wang, Y.: A genetic algorithm for optimized feature selection with resource constraints in software product lines. J. Syst. Softw. 84(12), 2208–2221 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haugen, Ø., Moller-Pedersen, B., Oldevik, J., Olsen, G., Svendsen, A.: Adding standardized variability to domain specific languages. In: 12th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2008, pp. 139–148, September 2008Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holthusen, S., Wille, D., Legat, C., Beddig, S., Schaefer, I., Vogel-Heuser, B.: Family model mining for function block diagrams in automationsoftware. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference, vol. 2, pp. 36–43 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, K., Kim, H., Kim, W.: Building software product line from the legacy systems “experience in the digital audio and video domain”. In: 11th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2007, pp. 171–180, September 2007Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kolb, R., Muthig, D., Patzke, T., Yamauchi, K.: Refactoring a legacy component for reuse in a software product line: a case study: practice articles. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. 18(2), 109–132 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krueger, C.W.: Easing the transition to software mass customization. In: van der Linden, F. (ed.) Software Product-Family Engineering. LNCS, vol. 2290, pp. 282–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, H., Choi, H., Kang, K.C., Kim, D., Lee, Z.: Experience report on using a domain model-based extractive approach to software product line asset development. In: Edwards, S.H., Kulczycki, G. (eds.) ICSR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5791, pp. 137–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martinez, J., Ziadi, T., Bisyandé, T.F., Klein, J., Traon, Y.L.: Bottom-up adoption of software product lines,: a generic and extensible approach. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line (SPLC), pp. 101–110 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pascual, G.G., Pinto, M., Fuentes, L.: Self-adaptation of mobile systems driven by the common variability language. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 47, 127–144 (2015). Special Section: Advanced Architectures for the Future Generation of Software-Intensive SystemsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubin, J., Chechik, M.: Combining related products into product lines. In: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) FASE 2012 and ETAPS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 285–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wille, D., Holthusen, S., Schulze, S., Schaefer, I.: Interface variability in family model mining. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference: Co-located Workshops, pp. 44–51 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, X., Haugen, Ø, Moller-Pedersen, B.: Model comparison to synthesize a model-driven software product line. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), pp. 90–99 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaime Font
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lorena Arcega
    • 1
    • 2
  • Øystein Haugen
    • 3
  • Carlos Cetina
    • 1
  1. 1.SVIT Research GroupSan Jorge UniversityZaragozaSpain
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Information TechnologyØstfold University CollegeHaldenNorway

Personalised recommendations