Implementation Issues in Product Line Scoping

  • Klaus Schmid
  • Cristina Gacek
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1844)

Abstract

Often product line engineering is treated similar to the waterfall model in traditional software engineering, i.e., the different phases (scoping, analysis, architecting, implementation) are treated as if they could be clearly separated and would follow each other in an ordered fashion. However, in practice strong interactions between the individual phases become apparent. In particular, how implementation is done has a strong impact on economic aspects of the project and thus how to adequately plan it. Hence, assessing these relationships adequately in the beginning has a strong impact on performing a product line project right.

In this paper we present a framework that helps in exactly this task. It captures on an abstract level the relationships between scoping information and implementation aspects and thus allows to provide rough guidance on implementation aspects of the project. We will also discuss the application of our framework to a specific industrial project.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Reuse-Driven Software Processes Guidebook, Software Productivity Consortium Services Corporation, Technical Report SPC-92019-CMC (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook, Version 2.0, Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems (STARS), Technical Report STARS-VC-A025/001/00 (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayer, J., Flege, O., Knauber, P., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., Schmid, K., Widen, T., DeBaud, J.-M.: PuLSE: A methodology to develop software product lines. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Software Reusability 1999, SSR 1999 (May 1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeBaud, J.-M., Schmid, K.: A systematic approach to derive the scope of software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Department of Defense - Software Reuse Initiative, Domain Scoping Framework, Version 3.1, Vol. 2, Technical Description (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeBaud, J.M., Girard, J.F.: The Relation between the Product Line Development Entry Points and Reengineering. In: Proc. of Workshop on Development and Evolution of Software Architecture for Product Families, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain (February 1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice. Addison Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reuse Adoption Guidebook, Software Productivity Consortium Services Corporation (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poulin, J.: Measuring Software Reuse. Addison Wesley, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shaw, M., Clements, P.: A Field Guide to Boxology: Preliminary Classification of Architectural Styles for Software Systems. In: Proceedings of COMPSAC 1997, Washington, DC (August 1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krueger, C.: Software Reuse. ACM Computing Surveys 24(2), 131–183 (1992)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeBaud, J.M.: The Construction of Software Systems using Domain-Specific Reuse Infrastructures, Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobson, I., Griss, M., Jonsson, P.: Software Reuse: Architecture Process and Organization for Business Success. ACM Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Birk, A., Kröschel, F.: A Knowledge Management Lifecycle for Experience Packages on Software Engineering Technologies. IESE-Report No. 007.99/E (February 1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perry, D.: Generic Architecture Descriptions for Product Lines. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Development and Evolution of Software Architecture for Product Families, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, pp. 51–56 (February 1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bayer, J., Flege, O., Gacek, C.: Creating Product Line Architectures. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Software Architectures for Product Families (IWSAPF- 3) (March 2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bayer, J., Gacek, C., Muthig, D., Widen, T.: PuLSE-I: Deriving Instances from a Product Line Infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual IEEE International Conference on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems, ECBS (April 2000) (to appear)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bayer, J., Flege, O., Knauber, P., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., Schmid, K., Widen, T.: PuLSE TM — Product Line Software Engineering. Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering. IESE-Report No. 020.99/E (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bayer, J., Girard, J.-F., Würthner, M., DeBaud, J.-M., Apel, M.: Transitioning Legacy Assets to a Product Line Architecture. In: Nierstrasz, O., Lemoine, M. (eds.) ESEC 1999 and ESEC-FSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1687, p. 446. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gacek, C.: Detecting Architectural Mismatches During System Composition, Ph.D. Dissertation, Center for Software Engineering. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0781, USA (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kazman, R., Barbacci, M., Klein, M., Carriere, S.J., Woods, S.G.: Experience with Performing Architecture Tradeoff Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1999), pp. 54–63 (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Balzer, R.: An Architectural Infrastructure for Product Families. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Development and Evolution of Software Architecture for Product Families, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, pp. 158–160 (February 1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Althoff, K.D., Birk, A., Hartkopf, S., Müller, W., Nick, M., Surmann, D., Tautz, C.: Managing Software Engineering Experience for Comprehensive Reuse. In: Ruhe, G., Bomarius, F. (eds.) SEKE 1999, vol. 1756, pp. 10–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Schmid
    • 1
  • Cristina Gacek
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE)KaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations