Taming MultiVariability of Software Product Line Transformations
 5 Citations
 5.5k Downloads
Abstract
Software product lines continuously undergo model transformations, such as refactorings, refinements, and translations. In product line transformations, the dedicated management of variability can help to control complexity and to benefit maintenance and performance. However, since no existing approach is geared for situations in which both the product line and the transformation specification are affected by variability, substantial maintenance and performance obstacles remain. In this paper, we introduce a methodology that addresses such multivariability situations. We propose to manage variability in product lines and rulebased transformations consistently by using annotative variability mechanisms. We present a staged rule application technique for applying a variabilityintensive transformation to a product line. This technique enables considerable performance benefits, as it avoids enumerating products or rules upfront. We prove the correctness of our technique and show its ability to improve performance in a software engineering scenario.
1 Introduction
Software product line engineering [1] enables systematic reuse of software artifacts through the explicit management of variability. Representing a software product line (SPL) in terms of functionality increments called features, and mapping these features to development artifacts such as domain models and code allows to generate customtailored products on demand, by retrieving the corresponding artifacts for a given feature selection. Companies such as Bosch, Boeing, and Philips use SPLs to deliver tailormade products to their customers [2].
Despite these benefits, a growing amount of variability leads to combinatorial explosions of the product space and, consequently, to severe challenges. Notably, this applies to software engineering tasks such as refactorings [3], refinements [4], and evolution steps [5], which, to support systematic management, are often expressed as model transformations. When applying a given model transformation to a SPL, a key challenge is to avoid enumerating and considering all possible products individually. To this end, Salay et al. [6] have proposed an algorithm that “lifts” regular transformation rules to a whole product line. The algorithm transforms the SPL, represented as a variabilityannotated domain model, in such way as if each product had been considered individually.
Yet, in complex transformation scenarios as increasingly found in practice [7], not only the considered models include variations: The transformation system can contain variability as well, for example, due to desired optional behavior of rules, or for rule variants arising from the sheer complexity of the involved metamodels. While a number of works [8, 9, 10] support systematic reuse to improve maintainability, variabilitybased model transformation (VB) [11, 12] also aims to improve the performance when a transformation system with many similar rules is executed. To this end, these rules are represented as a single rule with variability annotations, called VB rule. During rule applications, a special VB rule application technique [13] saves redundant effort by considering common rule parts only once. In summary, for cases where either the model or the transformation system alone contains variability, solid approaches are available.
However, a more challenging case occurs when a variabilityintensive transformation is applied to an SPL. In this multivariability setting, where both the input model and the specification of a transformation contain variability, the existing approaches fall short to deal with the resulting complexity: One can either consider all rules, so they can be “lifted” to the product line, or consider all products, so they become amenable to VB model transformation. Both approaches are undesirable, as they require enumerating an exponentially growing number of artifacts and, therefore, threaten the feasibility of the transformation.
In this paper, we introduce a methodology for SPL transformations inspired by the uniformity principle [14], a tenet that suggests to handle variability consistently throughout all software artifacts. We propose to capture variability of SPLs and transformations using variabilityannotated domain models and rules. Model and rule elements are annotated with presence conditions, specifying the conditions under which the annotated elements are present. The presence conditions of model and rule elements are specified over two separate sets of features, representing SPL and rule variability. Annotated domain models and rules can be created manually using available editor support [15, 16], or automatically from existing products and rules by using mergerefactoring techniques [17, 18].

We introduce a staged technique for applying a VB rule to an SPL. Our technique combines core principles of VB rule applications and lifting, while avoiding their drawbacks w.r.t. enumerating all products or rules upfront.

We formally prove correctness of this technique by showing its equivalence to the application of each “flattened” product to each “flattened” rule.

We present an algorithm for implementing the rule application technique.

We evaluate the usefulness of our technique by studying its performance in a substantial number of cases within a software engineering scenario.
Our work builds on the underlying framework of algebraic graph transformation (AGT) [19]. AGT is one of the standard model transformation language paradigms [20]; in addition, it has recently gained momentum as an analysis paradigm for other widespread paradigms and languages such as ATL [21]. We focus on the annotative paradigm to variability. Suitable converters to and from alternative paradigms, such as the compositionbased one [22], may allow our technique to be used in other cases as well.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: We motivate and explain our contribution using a running example in Sect. 2. Section 3 revisits the necessary background. Section 4 introduces the formalization of our new rule application technique. The algorithm and its evaluation are presented in Sects. 5 and 6, respectively. In Sect. 7 we discuss related work, before we conclude in Sect. 8.
2 Running Example
Software Product Lines. An SPL represents a collection of models that are similar, but different to each other. Figure 2 shows a washing machine controller SPL in an annotative representation, comprising an annotated domain model and a feature model. The feature model [23] specifies a root feature Wash with three optional children Heat, Delay, and Dry, where Heat and Delay are mutually exclusive. The domain model is a statechart diagram specifying the behavior of the controller SPL based on states Locking, Waiting, Washing, Drying, and UnLocking with transitions between them. Presence conditions, shown in gray labels, denote the condition under which an annotated element is present. These conditions are used to specify variations in the execution behavior.
Concrete products can be obtained from configurations, in which each optional feature is set to either true or false. A product arises by removing those elements whose presence condition evaluates to false in the given configuration. For instance, selecting Delay and deselecting Heat and Dry yields the product shown in the right of Fig. 2. The SPL has six configurations and products in total, since Wash is nonoptional and Delay excludes Heat.
Problem Statement. Model transformations such as foldActions are usually designed for applications to a concrete software product, represented by a single model. However, in various situations, it is desirable to extend the usage context to a set of models collected in an SPL. For example, during the batch refactoring of an SPL, all products should be refactored in a uniform way.
Variability is challenging for model transformation technologies. As illustrated in Table 1, products and rules need to be considered in manifold combinations. In our example, without dedicated variability support, the user needs to specify 6 products and 2 rules individually and trigger a rule application for each of the 12 combinations. A better strategy is enabled by VB model transformation: by applying the VB rule \(A+B\), only 6 combinations need to be considered. Another strategy is to apply rules A and B to the SPL by lifting [6] them, leading to 2 combinations and the biggest improvement so far. Still, in more complex cases, all of these strategies are insufficient. Since none of them avoids an exponential growth along the number of optional SPL features (\(\#F_P\)) or optional rule features (\(\#F_r\)), the feasibility of the transformation is threatened.
Performancewise, the main benefit of this technique is twofold: First, using the termination criteria, we can exit the matching process early without considering specifics of products and rule variants. This is particularly beneficial in situations where none or only few rules of a larger rule set are applicable most of the time, which is typically the case, for example, in translators. Second, even if we have to enumerate some rules in step 2, we do not have to start the matching process from scratch, since we can save redundant effort by extending the available base matches. Consequently, Table 1 gives the number of independent combinations (in the sense that rule applications are started from scratch) as 1.
3 Background
We now introduce the necessary prerequisites of our methodology, starting with the doublepushout approach to algebraic graph transformation [19]. As the underlying structure, we assume the category of graphs with graph morphisms (referred to as morphisms from here), although all considerations are likely compatible with additional graph features such as typing and attributes.
Definition 1
(Rules and applications). A rule Open image in new window consists of graphs L, I and R, called lefthand side, interface graph and righthand side, respectively, and two injective morphisms le and ri.
A rule application exists iff the match m fulfills the gluing condition, which, in the category of graphs boils down to the dangling condition: all adjacent edges of a deleted node in m’s image m[L] must have a preimage in L.
Product Lines. Our formalization represents product lines on the semantic level by considering interrelations between the included graphs. The domain model is a “maximal” graph of which all products are subgraphs. The presencecondition function maps subgraphs (rather than elements, as done on the syntactic level) to terms in the boolean term algebra over features, written \(T_{BOOL}(F_P)\). The set of all subgraphs of the domain model is written \(\mathcal {P}(M_P)\).
Definition 2

A product line \(P = (F_P,\varPhi _P,M_P,f_P)\) consists of three parts: a feature model that consists of a set \(F_P\) of features, and a set of feature constraints \(\varPhi _P \subseteq T_{BOOL}(F_P)\), a domain model \(M_P\) given as a graph, and a set of presence conditions expressed as a function \(f_P\): \(\mathcal {P}(M_P) \rightarrow T_{{\textit{BOOL}}}(F_P)\).

Given a set of features F, a configuration is a total function \(\textit{c} : F \rightarrow \{\textit{true}, \textit{false}\}\). A configuration \(\textit{c}\) satisfies a term \(t \in T_{BOOL}(F)\) if t evaluates to \(\textit{true}\) when each variable v in t is substituted by \(\textit{c}(v)\). A configuration \(\textit{c}\) is valid w.r.t. a set of constraints \(\varPhi \) if \(\textit{c}\) satisfies every constraint in \(\varPhi \).

Given a product line \(P= (F_P,\varPhi _P,M_P,f_P)\), a product \(P_c\) is derived from P under the valid configuration c if \(P_c\) is the union of all those graphs \(M^{\prime }{} \subseteq M_P\) for which \(f_P(M^{\prime }{})\) is satisfied by c: \(P_c = \bigcup \{M' \subseteq M_P c~\textit{satisfies}~f_P(M^{\prime }{})\) \(\textit{and}~c~\textit{is valid w.r.t.}~\varPhi _P\}\). The flattening of P is the set Flat(P) of all products of P: Flat(P) = \(\{ P_c  P_c\,\text{ is } \text{ a } \text{ product } \text{ of }\,P \}\).
Definition 3
(Lifted rule application). Given a product line P, a rule r, and a match \(m: L \rightarrow M_P\), a lifted rule application \(P \Rightarrow _{r,m}^\uparrow Q\) is a construction that relates P to a product line Q s.t. \(F_P\) = \(F_Q\), \(\varPhi _P\) = \(\varPhi _Q\), and the set of products Flat(Q) is the same as if r was applied to each product \(P_i \in Flat (P)\) for which an inclusion \(j: m[L] \rightarrow P_i\) from the image of m exists.
Salay et al. [6] provide an algorithm for which it is shown that the properties required in Definition 3 apply. The algorithm extends a rule application to the domain model by a check that the match can be mapped to at least one product, and by dedicated presence condition handling during additions and deletions. A more declarative treatment is offered by Taentzer et al. [25]’s product line pushout construction, which is designed to support lifted rule application as a special case.
VariabilityBased Transformation. VB rules are defined similarly to product lines, with a “maximal” rule instead of a domain model, and a notion of subrules instead of subgraphs. A subrule is a rule that can be embedded into a larger rule injectively s.t. the actions of rule elements are preserved [12], e.g., deletions are mapped to deletions. The set of all subrules of a rule r is written \(\mathcal {P}(r)\).
Definition 4
(Variabilitybased (VB) rule). A VB rule \(\check{r} = (F_{\check{r}},\varPhi _{\check{r}},r_{\check{r}},f_{\check{r}})\) consists of three parts: a feature model that consists of a set \(F_{\check{r}}\) of features, and a set of feature constraints \(\varPhi _{\check{r}} \subseteq T_{BOOL}(F_{\check{r}})\), a maximal rule \(r_{\check{r}}\) being a rule, and a set of presence conditions expressed as a function \(f_P\): \(\mathcal {P}(r_{\check{r}}) \rightarrow T_{{\mathrm{BOOL}}}(F_{\check{r}})\).
To later consider the base rule, that is, a maximal subrule of multiple flat rules, we define the flattening of VB rules in terms of consecutive intersection and union constructions, expressed as multipullbacks and pushouts [12]. The multipullback \(r_0\) gives the base rule, over which the flat rule arises by multipushout.
Definition 5
(Flat rule). Given a VB rule \(\check{r}\), for a valid configuration c w.r.t. \(\varPhi _{\check{r}}\), there exists a unique set of n subrules \(S_c \subseteq \mathcal {P}(r_{\check{r}})\) s.t. \(\forall s \in \mathcal {P}(r_{\check{r}}):\) \(s \in S_c\) iff c satisfies \(f_{\check{r}}(s)\). Merging these subrules via multipullback and multipushout over \(r_{\check{r}}\) and \(r_0\), respectively, yields a rule \(r_c\), called flat rule induced by c. The flattening of \(\check{r}\) is the set Flat(\(\check{r}\)) of all flat rules of \(\check{r}\): Flat(\(\check{r}\)) = \(\{r_c  r_c~\textit{is a flat rule of}~\check{r}\}\).
In the example, \(r_{\check{r}}\) is the rule \(A+B\), ignoring presence conditions. Given the configuration c = {foldEntry = true, foldExit = false}, the multipullback over each subrule whose presence condition satisfies c yields as the base rule \(r_0\) precisely the part of rule \(A+B\) without presence conditions (i.e., only the states). The resulting flat rule \(r_c\) is isomorphic to rule A.
As a prerequisite for achieving efficiency during staged application, we revisit VB rule application. The key idea is that matches of a flat rule are composed from matches of all of its subrules. By considering the subrules during matching, we can reuse matches over several rules and identify earlyexit opportunities.
Definition 6

Given a variabilitybased rule \(\check{r}\), a graph G, and a valid configuration c, there exists a unique set of subrules \(S_c \subseteq r_{\check{r}}\) s.t. \(\forall s \in \mathcal {P}(r_{\check{r}}):\) \(s \in S_c\) iff c satisfies \(f_{\check{r}}(s)\). A variabilitybased match family is a family of morphisms \((m_s : L_s \rightarrow G)_{1 \le s \le S_c}\) s.t. \(\forall m_i, m_j\) with \(1 \le i,j \le S_c\) the following compatability condition holds: \(\forall x \in dom(m_i) \cap dom(m_j): m_i(x) = m_j(x)\).
 Given a variabilitybased match family \((m_s)\) for \(\check{r}\), G, and c, a variabilitybased match \(\check{m}\) is a pair \((m_c, \textit{c})\) where the morphism \(m_c : L_{\textit{c}} \rightarrow G\) is obtained by the colimit property of \(L_\textit{c}\). If \(m_c\) is a match, \(\check{m}\) is called a variabilitybased match.

Given a variabilitybased match \(\check{m} = (m_c, c)\) for \(\check{r}\) and G, the application of \(\check{r}\) at \(\check{m}\) is the rule application \(G \Rightarrow _{r_\textit{c}, m_c}H\) of the flat rule \(r_\textit{c}\) to \(m_c\).
In the example, a VB match family is obtained: Step 1 collects matches of the LHS \(L_0\). Step 2 reuses these matches to match the flat rules: according to the compatibility condition, we may extend the matches rather than start from scratch. The set of VB rule applications for a rule \(\check{r}\) to a model G is equivalent to the set of rule applications of all flat rules in Flat(\(\check{r}\)) to G [12, Theorem 2].
4 Multivariability of Product Line Transformations
A variabilitybased rule represents a set of similar transformation rules, while a product line represents a set of similar models. We consider the application of a variabilitybased rule to a product line from a formal perspective. Our idea is to combine two principles of maximality, which, up to now, were considered in isolation: First, by applying a rule to a “maximum” of all products, the rule can be lifted efficiently to a product line (Definition 3). Second, by reusing matches of a maximal subrule, several rules can be applied efficiently to a single model (Definition 6).
We study three strategies for applying a variabilitybased rule \(\check{r}\) to a product line \(P\); the third one leads to the notion of staged rule application as introduced in Sect. 2. First, we consider the naive case of flattening \(\check{r}\) and \(P\) and applying each rule to each product. Second, we take the two maximality principles into account to avoid the flattening of \(\check{r}\). Third, we use additional aspects from the first principle to avoid the flattening of \(P\) as well. We show that all strategies are equivalent in the sense that they change all of \(P\)’s products in the same way.
4.1 Fully Flattened Application
Definition 7
In the example, there are two rules and six products; however, only for two products—the ones arising from configurations with Delay = true and Heat = false—a match, and, therefore, a rule application exists, as we saw in the earlier description of the example. \(Trans_{FF}(P,\check{r})\) comprises the resulting two rule applications.
4.2 Partially Flattened Application
We now consider a strategy that aims to avoid unflattening the variabilitybased rule \(\check{r}\). We use the fact that the rules in \(\check{r}\) generally share a maximal, possibly empty subrule \(r_0\) that can be embedded into all rules in \(\check{r}\). Moreover, we exploit the fact that each product has an inclusion into the domain model.
To reuse matches to the domain model for the products, we introduce the rerouting of a morphism from its codomain onto another graph \(G'\). We omit naming the codomain and \(G'\) explicitly where they are clear from the context.
Definition 8
(Rerouted morphism). Let an inclusion \(i : G'~\rightarrow ~G\), a morphism \(m : L \rightarrow G\) with an epimonofactorization \((e, m')\), and a morphism \(j : m[L] \rightarrow G'\) be given, s.t. \(m' = i \circ j\). The rerouted morphism \(\textit{reroute}(m,G') : L \rightarrow G'\) arises by composition: \(\textit{reroute}(m,G') = j \circ e\).
Definition 9
(Rerouted variabilitybased match). Given a graph G, a variabilitybased rule \(\check{r}\) with a variabilitybased match \(\check{m}= (m_c, c)\) (Definition 6), and an inclusion \(i : G'~\rightarrow ~G\). If the epimonofactorization of \(m_c\) and a suitable morphism j exists, a rerouted morphism onto \(G'\) arises (Definition 8). Pairing this morphism with the configuration c induces the rerouted variabilitybased match of \(\check{m}_c\) onto \(G'\): \(\textit{reroute}(\check{m}, G') = (\textit{reroute}(m_c,G'),c)\).
In Fig. 5, \(m_{c,h}\) is the morphism obtained by rerouting a match \(m_{c,t}\) from the domain model \(M_p\) to product \(P_h\). For example, if \(m_{c,t}\) is the match indicated in steps 1 and 2 of Fig. 4, the morphism j and, consequently, \(m_{c,h}\) exists only for products in which all images of the mappings exist as well, e.g., the product shown in the right of Fig. 2. Note that \(m_{c,t}\) is a variabilitybased match to \(M_P\): In an earlier explanation, we saw that the family \((m_{i,t})\) forms a variabilitybased match family. Therefore, per Definition 9, pairing \(m_{c,h}\) with the configuration c induces a variabilitybased match to \(P_h\), which can be used as follows.
Variabilitybased rule application (Definition 6) allows us to save matching effort by considering shared parts of rules to a graph only once. The following definition allows us to lift this insight from graphs onto product lines. We show that the sets of partially and fully flattened rule applications are equivalent.
Definition 10
Theorem 1
(Equivalence of fully and partially flattened rule applications). Given a product line \(P\) and a variabilitybased rule \(\check{r}\), \(Trans_{FF}(P,\check{r}) = Trans_{PF}(P,\check{r})\).
Proof idea.^{1} For every fully flattened (FF) rule application, we can find a corresponding partially flattened (PF) one, and vice versa: Given a FF rule application at a match \(m'\), we compose \(m'\) with the product inclusion into the domain model \(M_P\) to obtain a match \(m_c\) into \(M_P\). Per Theorem 2 in [12], \(m_c\) induces a VB match and rule application. From a diagram chase, we see that \(m'\) is the morphism arising from rerouting \(m_c\) onto the product \(P_i\). Consequently, the rule application is PF. Conversely, a PF variabilitybased rule application induces a corresponding FF rule application by its definition.
4.3 Staged Application
The final strategy we consider, staged application, aims to avoid unflattening the products as well. This can be achieved by employing lifting (Definition 3): Lifting takes a single rule and applies it to a domain model and its presence conditions in such a way as if the rule had been applied to each product individually. The considered rule in our case is a flat rule with a match to the domain model.
Note that we cannot compare the set of staged applications directly to the set of flattened applications, since it does not live on the product level. We can, however, compare the obtained sets of products from both sets of applications, which happens to be the same, thus showing the correctness of our approach.
Definition 11
Corollary 1
(Equivalence of staged and partially flattened rule applications). Given a product line \(P\) and a variabilitybased rule \(\check{r}\), the sets of products obtained from \(Trans_{St}(P,\check{r})\) and \(Trans_{PF}(P,\check{r})\) are isomorphic.
Proof
Since both sets are defined over the same set of matches of flat rules, the proof follows straight from the definition of lifting.
5 Algorithm
We present an algorithm for implementing the staged application of a VB rule \(\check{r}\) to a product line P. Following the overview in Sect. 2 and the treatment in Sect. 4, the main idea is to proceed in three steps: First, we match the base rule of \(\check{r}\) to the domain model, ignoring presence conditions. Second, we consider individual rules as far as necessary to obtain matches to the domain model. Third, based on the matches, we perform the actual rule application by using the lifting algorithm from [6] in a blackbox manner.
Algorithm 1 shows the computation in more detail. In line 1, \(\check{r}\)’s base rule \(r_0\) is matched to the domain model \(\textit{Model}_P\), leading to a set of base matches. If this set is empty, we have reached the first exit criterion and can stop directly. Otherwise, given a match m, in line 2, we check if at least one product \(P_i\) exists that m can be rerouted onto (Definition 8). To this end, in lines 3–4, we use a SAT solver to check if there is a valid configuration of P’s feature model for which all presence conditions of matched elements evaluate to true. In this case, we iterate over the valid configurations of \(\check{r}\) in line 5 (we may proceed more finegrainedly by using partial configurations; this optimization is omitted for simplicity). In line 6, a flat rule is obtained by removing all elements from the rule whose presence condition evaluates to false. We match this rule to the domain model in line 7; to save redundant effort, we restrict the search to matches that extend the current base match. Absence of such a match is the second stopping criterion. Otherwise, we feed the flat rule and the set of matches to lifting in line 8. Handling dangling conditions is left to lifting; in the positive case, P is transformed afterwards.
For illustration, consider the base match \(m_1\) = {Looking, Waiting, Washing} from Fig. 4. First we calculate \(\varPhi _{pc}\). As none of the states in the domain model has a presence condition, \(\varPhi _{pc}\) is set to true and is identified as satisfiable. Two valid configurations exist, \(c_1 = \{foldEntry=true,foldExit=false\}\) and \(c_2 = \{foldEntry=false,foldExit=true\}\). Considering \(c_1\), the presence condition foldExit evaluates to false; removing the corresponding elements yield a rule isomorphic to Rule A in Fig. 3. Match \(m_1\) is now extended using this rule, leading to a match as shown in step 2 of Fig. 4. and then lifted, as discussed in the earlier explanation of the example. Step 2 is repeated for configuration \(c_2\); yet, as no suitable match in \(c_2\) exists, the shown transformation is the only possible one.
This algorithm benefits from the correctness results shown in Sect. 4. Specifically, it computes staged rule applications as per Definition 11: A configuration c is determined in line 5, and values for match \(m_c\) are collected in the set Matches. Via Corollary 1 and Theorem 1, the effect of the rule application to the products is the same as if each product had been considered individually.
In terms of performance, two limiting factors are the use of a graph matcher and a SAT solver; both of them perform an NPcomplete task. Still, we expect practical improvements from our strategy of reusing shared portions of the involved rules and graphs, and from the availability of efficient SAT solvers that scale up to millions of variables [26]. This hypothesis is studied in Sect. 6.
6 Evaluation
To evaluate our technique, we implemented it for Henshin [27, 28], a graphbased model transformation language, and applied it to a transformation scenario with product lines and transformation variability. The goal of our evaluation was to study if our technique indeed produces the expected performance benefits.
Subject rule set.
Category  #Rules  #VBRules 

Create/Set  274  171 
Delete/Unset  164  121 
Change/Move  966  212 
Total  1404  504 
Subject product lines.
SPL  #Elements  #Products 

1: InCar  116  54 
2: E2E  130  94 
3: JSSE  24,077  64 
4: Notepad  252  512 
5: Mobile  4,069  3,072 
6: Lampiro  29,045  5,892 
Execution times (in seconds) of the lifting and the staged approach.
Create/Set  Delete/Unset  Change/Move  Total  

Lift  Stage  Factor  Lift  Stage  Factor  Lift  Stage  Factor  Lift  Stage  Factor  
InCar  2.13  0.52  4.1  0.23  0.12  1.9  7.28  0.86  8.5  9.66  1.49  6.5 
E2E  1.99  0.82  2.4  0.35  0.32  1.1  7.28  0.95  7.7  9.62  2.12  4.5 
JSSE  2.00  0.51  3.9  0.24  0.16  1.5  8.40  3.08  2.7  10.61  3.79  2.8 
Notepad  2.05  0.66  3.1  0.26  0.14  1.9  7.01  1.64  4.3  9.38  2.47  3.8 
Mobile  2.00  0.55  3.7  0.24  0.13  1.9  8.28  1.62  5.1  10.55  2.26  4.7 
Lampiro  2.05  0.64  3.2  0.26  0.15  1.7  8.25  2.58  3.2  10.55  3.29  3.2 
As baseline for comparison, we considered the lifted application of each rule in UmlRecog. An alternative baseline of applying VB rules to the flattened set of products was not considered: The SPL variability in our setting is much greater than the rule variability, which implies a high performance penalty when enumerating products. Since we currently do not support advanced transformation features, e.g., negative application conditions and amalgamation, we used variants of the flat and the VB rules without these concepts. We used a Ubuntu 17.04 system (Oracle JDK 1.8, Intel Core i56200U, 8 GB RAM) for all experiments.
Results. Table 4 gives an overview of the results of our experiments. The total execution times for our technique were between 1.5 and 3.3 s, compared to 9.4 and 10.6 s for lifting, yielding a speedup by factors between 2.8 and 6.5. For both techniques, all execution times are in the same order of magnitude across product lines. A possible explanation is that the amount of applicable rules was small: if the vast majority of rules can be discarded early in the matching process, the execution time is constant with the number of rules.
The greatest speedups were observed for the Change/Move category, in which rule variability was the greatest as well, indicated by the ratio between rules and VB rules in Table 2. This observation is in line with our rationale of reusing shared matches between rules. Regarding the number of products, a trend regarding better scalability is not apparent, thus demonstrating that lifting is sufficient for controlling productline variability. Still, based on the overall results, the hypothesis that our technique improves performance in situations with significant productline and transformation variability can be confirmed.
Threats to Validity. Regarding external validity, we only considered a limited set of scenarios, based on six product lines and one largescale transformation. We aim to apply our technique to a broader class of cases in the future. The version pairs were obtained in a synthetic process, arguably one that produces pessimistic cases. Our treatment so far is also limited to a particular transformation paradigm, AGT, and one variability paradigm, the annotative one. Still, AGT and annotative variability are the underlying paradigms of many stateoftheart tools. Finally, we did not consider the advanced AGT concepts of negative application conditions and amalgamation in our evaluation; extending our technique accordingly is left as future work.
7 Related Work
During an SPL’s lifecycle, not only the domain model, but also the feature model evolves [32, 33]. To support the combined transformation of domain and feature models, Taentzer et al. [25] propose a unifying formal framework which generalizes Salay et al.’s notion of lifting [6], yet in a different direction than us: focusing on combined changes, this approach is not geared for internal variability of rules; similar rules are considered separately. Both works could be combined using a rule concept with separate feature models for rule and SPL variability.
Beyond transformations of SPLs, transformations have been used to implement SPLs. Featureoriented development [34] supports the implementation of features as additive changes to a base product. Deltaoriented programming [35] adds flexibility to this approach: changes are specified using deltas that support deletions and modifications as well. Impact analysis in an evolving SPL can be performed by transforming deltas using higherorder deltas that encapsulate certain evolution operators [5]. For increased flexibility regarding interproduct reuse, deltas can be combined with traits [36]. Sijtema [8] introduced the concept of variability rules to develop SPLs using ATL. Conversely, SPL techniques have been applied to certain problems in transformation development. Xiao et al. [37] propose to capture variability in the backwards propagation of bidirectional transformations by turning the lefthandside model into a SPL. Hussein et al. [10] present a notion of rule templates for generating groups of similar rules based on a data provenance model. These works address only one dimension of variability, either of a SPL or a transformation system.
In the domain of graph transformation reuse, rule refinement [9] and amalgamation [38] focus on reuse at the rule level; graph variability is not in their scope. Rensink and Ghamarian propose a solution for rule and graph decomposition based a certain accommodation condition, under which the effect of the original rule application is preserved [39, 40]. In our approach, by matching against the full domain model rather than decomposing it, we trade off compositionality for the benefit of imposing fewer restrictions on graphs and rules.
8 Conclusion and Future Work
We propose a methodology for software product line transformations in which not only the input product line, but also the transformation system contains variability. At the heart of our methodology a staged rule application technique exploits reuse potential with regard to shared portions of the involved products and rules. We showed the correctness of our technique and demonstrated its benefit by applying it to a practical software engineering task.
In the future, we aim to explore further variability dimensions, e.g., metamodel variability as considered in [41], and to extend our work to advanced transformation features, such as application conditions. We aim to address additional variability mechanisms and to perform a broader evaluation.
Footnotes
 1.
A full proof is provided in the extended version of this paper: http://danielstrueber.de/publications/SPJ18.pdf.
Notes
Acknowledgement
We thank Rick Salay and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), project SecVolution@Runtime, no. 221328183.
References
 1.Pohl, K., Boeckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3540289011CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 2.Apel, S., Batory, D., Kästner, C., Saake, G.: FeatureOriented Software Product Lines: Concepts and Implementation. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642375217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 3.Schulze, S., Thüm, T., Kuhlemann, M., Saake, G.: Variantpreserving refactoring in featureoriented software product lines. In: VaMoS, pp. 73–81 (2012)Google Scholar
 4.Borba, P., Teixeira, L., Gheyi, R.: A theory of software product line refinement. Theor. Comput. Sci. 455, 2–30 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 5.Lity, S., Kowal, M., Schaefer, I.: Higherorder delta modeling for software product line evolution. In: FOSD, pp. 39–48 (2016)Google Scholar
 6.Salay, R., Famelis, M., Rubin, J., Sandro, A.D., Chechik, M.: Lifting model transformations to product lines. In: ICSE, pp. 117–128 (2014)Google Scholar
 7.Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., Matragkas, N., Paige, R.F., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S., De Lara, J., Ráth, I., Varró, D., Tisi, M., et al.: A research roadmap towards achieving scalability in model driven engineering. In: BigMDE, p. 2. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
 8.Sijtema, M.: Introducing variability rules in ATL for managing variability in MDEbased product lines. In: MtATL 2010, pp. 39–49 (2010)Google Scholar
 9.Anjorin, A., Saller, K., Lochau, M., Schürr, A.: Modularizing triple graph grammars using rule refinement. In: Gnesi, S., Rensink, A. (eds.) FASE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8411, pp. 340–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642548048_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 10.Hussein, J., Moreau, L., et al.: A templatebased graph transformation system for the PROV data model. In: GCM (2016)Google Scholar
 11.Strüber, D.: Modeldriven engineering in the large: refactoring techniques for models and model transformation systems. Ph.D. dissertation, PhilippsUniversität Marburg (2016)Google Scholar
 12.Strüber, D., Rubin, J., Arendt, T., Chechik, M., Taentzer, G., Plöger, J.: Variabilitybased model transformation: formal foundation and application. Formal Aspects Comput. 30, 133–162 (2017)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 13.Strüber, D., Rubin, J., Chechik, M., Taentzer, G.: A variabilitybased approach to reusable and efficient model transformations. In: Egyed, A., Schaefer, I. (eds.) FASE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9033, pp. 283–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783662466759_19Google Scholar
 14.Kästner, C., Apel, S., Trujillo, S., Kuhlemann, M., Batory, D.: Languageindependent safe decomposition of legacy applications into features, vol. 2. Technical report, School of Computer Science, University of Magdeburg, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
 15.Di Sandro, A., Salay, R., Famelis, M., Kokaly, S., Chechik, M.: MMINT: a graphical tool for interactive model management. In: P&D@ MoDELS, pp. 16–19 (2015)Google Scholar
 16.Strüber, D., Schulz, S.: A tool environment for managing families of model transformation rules. In: Echahed, R., Minas, M. (eds.) ICGT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9761, pp. 89–101. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319405308_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 17.Rubin, J., Chechik, M.: Combining related products into product lines. In: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) FASE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 285–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642288722_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 18.Strüber, D., Rubin, J., Arendt, T., Chechik, M., Taentzer, G., Plöger, J.: RuleMerger: automatic construction of variabilitybased model transformation rules. In: Stevens, P., Wąsowski, A. (eds.) FASE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9633, pp. 122–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783662496657_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 19.Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. MTCSAES. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/3540311882zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 20.Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Featurebased survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 21.Richa, E., Borde, E., Pautet, L.: Translation of ATL to AGT and application to a code generator for Simulink. SoSyM, 1–24 (2017). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s1027001706078
 22.Kästner, C., Apel, S., Kuhlemann, M.: Granularity in software product lines. In: ICSE, pp. 311–320 (2008)Google Scholar
 23.Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Featureoriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical report, Software Engineering Inst., CarnegieMellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA (1990)Google Scholar
 24.Chechik, M., Famelis, M., Salay, R., Strüber, D.: Perspectives of model transformation reuse. In: Ábrahám, E., Huisman, M. (eds.) IFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9681, pp. 28–44. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319336930_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 25.Taentzer, G., Salay, R., Strüber, D., Chechik, M.: Transformations of software product lines: a generalizing framework based on category theory. In: MODELS, pp. 101–111. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
 26.Gomes, C.P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A., Selman, B.: Satisfiability solvers. In: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, pp. 89–134 (2008)Google Scholar
 27.Arendt, T., Biermann, E., Jurack, S., Krause, C., Taentzer, G.: Henshin: advanced concepts and tools for inplace EMF model transformations. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 121–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642161452_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 28.Strüber, D., Born, K., Gill, K.D., Groner, R., Kehrer, T., Ohrndorf, M., Tichy, M.: Henshin: a usabilityfocused framework for EMF model transformation development. In: de Lara, J., Plump, D. (eds.) ICGT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10373, pp. 196–208. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319614700_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 29.Kehrer, T., Kelter, U., Taentzer, G.: A rulebased approach to the semantic lifting of model differences in the context of model versioning. In: ASE, pp. 163–172. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
 30.Strüber, D., Plöger, J., Acreţoaie, V.: Clone detection for graphbased model transformation languages. In: Van Gorp, P., Engels, G. (eds.) ICMT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9765, pp. 191–206. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319420646_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 31.Strüber, D., Kehrer, T., Arendt, T., Pietsch, C., Reuling, D.: Scalability of model transformations: position paper and benchmark set. In: Workshop on Scalable Model Driven Engineering, pp. 21–30 (2016)Google Scholar
 32.Thüm, T., Batory, D., Kästner, C.: Reasoning about edits to feature models. In: ICSE, pp. 254–264 (2009)Google Scholar
 33.Bürdek, J., Kehrer, T., Lochau, M., Reuling, D., Kelter, U., Schürr, A.: Reasoning about productline evolution using complex feature model differences. Autom. Softw. Eng. 23, 687–733 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 34.Trujillo, S., Batory, D., Diaz, O.: Feature oriented model driven development: a case study for portlets. In: ICSE, pp. 44–53. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
 35.Schaefer, I., Bettini, L., Bono, V., Damiani, F., Tanzarella, N.: Deltaoriented programming of software product lines. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642155796_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 36.Damiani, F., Hähnle, R., Kamburjan, E., Lienhardt, M.: A unified and formal programming model for deltas and traits. In: Huisman, M., Rubin, J. (eds.) FASE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10202, pp. 424–441. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783662544945_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 37.He, X., Hu, Z., Liu, Y.: Towards variability management in bidirectional model transformation. In: COMPSAC, vol. 1, pp. 224–233. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
 38.Biermann, E., Ermel, C., Taentzer, G.: Lifting parallel graph transformation concepts to model transformation based on the eclipse modeling framework. Electron. Commun. EASST 26 (2010)Google Scholar
 39.Rensink, A.: Compositionality in graph transformation. In: Abramsky, S., Gavoille, C., Kirchner, C., Meyer auf der Heide, F., Spirakis, P.G. (eds.) ICALP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6199, pp. 309–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642141621_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 40.Ghamarian, A.H., Rensink, A.: Generalised compositionality in graph transformation. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7562, pp. 234–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642336546_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 41.Perrouin, G., Amrani, M., Acher, M., Combemale, B., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.Y.: Featured model types: towards systematic reuse in modelling language engineering. In: MiSE, pp. 1–7. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
Copyright information
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.