An Evaluation of the Graphical Modeling Framework (GMF) Based on the Development of the CORAS Tool

  • Fredrik Seehusen
  • Ketil Stølen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6707)


We present an evaluation of the Graphical Modeling Framework (GMF) based on our experiences in developing an editor for the risk modeling language CORAS using GMF. Our main hypothesis is that GMF shortens development time and results in more reliable and maintainable systems than alternative approaches which are not based on code generation. We conclude that the hypothesis is true, but that the answer is not as clear cut as we initially believed, and that there is still a large potential for improvement.


Model-Driven Development GMF Domain Specific Languages Evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amyot, D., Farah, H., Roy, J.-F.: Evaluation of Development Tools for Domain-Specific Modeling Languages. In: Gotzhein, R., Reed, R. (eds.) SAM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4320, pp. 183–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B.: Fundamental Concepts of Dependability. Research Report No 1145, LAAS-CNRS (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eclipse. Eclipse modeling framework project (emf) (2011), (visited February 8, 2011)
  4. 4.
    Eclipse. Graphical editing framework (gef) (2011), (visited February 8, 2011)
  5. 5.
    Eclipse. Graphical modeling project (gmp) (2011), (visited February 8, 2011)
  6. 6.
    Evans, A., Fernández, M.A., Mohagheghi, P.: Experiences of developing a network modeling tool using the eclipse environment. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 301–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gronback, R.C.: Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: The epsilon object language (EOL). In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kolvos, D.S.: An Extensible Platform for Specification of Integrated Languages for Model Management. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krogmann, K., Becker, S.: A case study on model-driven and conventional software development: The palladio editor. In: Proc. of tSoftware Engineering 2007 - Beiträge zu den Workshops, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, vol. 106, pp. 169–176. GI (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lund, M.S., Solhaug, B., Stølen, K.: Model Driven Risk Analysis - The CORAS Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGrath, J.E.: Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Where is the proof? - A review of experiences from applying MDE in industry. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 432–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pelechano, V., Albert, M., Muñoz, J., Cetina, C.: Building tools for model driven development. comparing microsoft dsl tools and eclipse modeling plugins. In: Proc. of the Actas del Taller sobre Desarrollo de Software Dirigido por Modelos. MDA y Aplicaciones. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 227 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrik Seehusen
    • 1
  • Ketil Stølen
    • 1
  1. 1.SINTEF Information and Communication TechnologyNorway

Personalised recommendations