CoDIT: Bridging the Gap between System-Level and Component-Level Development

  • Lukáš Hermann
  • Tomáš Bureš
  • Petr Hnětynka
  • Michal Malohlava
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 430)


Component-based development traditionally recognizes two parallel views (system-level view and component-level view), which correspond to two major concerns - development of a an application and development of a reusable component for the use in application development. By having different objectives, these views have relatively disparate notion of a component, which consequently means that they are difficult (yet necessary) to combine. In this paper, we propose a method (named CoDIT), which spans the gap between the two views by providing a synchronisation between system-level view (expressed in UML 2) and componentlevel view. For component-level view, the method supports component frameworks with method-call as the communication style. The variability in the composition mechanisms of the component frameworks is addressed by using principles of metacomponent systems. The benefits of the proposed method are evaluated on a real-life case study (in SOFA 2) together with measurements of development efforts.


Component Model Software Product Line Component Type Mapping Model Class Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ahumada, S., Apvrille, L., Barros, T., Cansado, A., Madelaine, E., Salageanu, E.: Specifying fractal and GCM components with UML. In: Proceedings of SCCC 2007, Iquique, Chile, pp. 53–62. IEEE CS (2007), doi:10.1109/SCCC.2007.21Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Leclercq, M., Quema, V., Stefani, J.: The FRACTAL component model and its support in Java. Software: Practice and Experience 36(11-12), 1257–1284 (2006), doi:10.1002/spe.767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bures, T., Hnetynka, P., Malohlava, M.: Using a product line for creating component systems. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium of Applied Computing (SAC 2009), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA pp. 501–508. ACM Press (2009), doi:10.1145/1529282.1529388Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bures, T., Hnetynka, P., Plasil, F.: SOFA 2.0: Balancing advanced features in a hierarchical component model. In: Proceedings of SERA 2006, Seattle, USA, pp. 40–48. IEEE CS (2006), doi:10.1109/SERA.2006.62Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crnkovic, I., Chaudron, M., Larsson, S.: Component-based development process and component lifecycle. Journal of Computing and Information Technology 13(4), 321–327 (2005), doi:10.2498/cit.2005.04.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crnkovic, I., Larsson, M.: Building reliable component-based software systems. Artech House, Norwood (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lau, K., Wang, Z.: Software component models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33(10), 709–724 (2007), doi:10.1109/TSE.2007.70726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mencl, V., Polak, M.: UML 2.0 components and fractal: An analysis. In: 5th International ECOOP Workshop on Fractal Component Model, Nantes, France (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG: Query/View/Transformation, v1.1. OMG document formal/2011-01-01 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szyperski, C.: Component software: beyond object-oriented programming, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukáš Hermann
    • 1
  • Tomáš Bureš
    • 1
    • 2
  • Petr Hnětynka
    • 1
  • Michal Malohlava
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Department of Distributed and Dependable SystemsCharles UniversityPrague 1Czech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrague 8Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations