Advertisement

Building Information System Variants with Tailored Database Schemas Using Features

  • Martin Schäler
  • Thomas Leich
  • Marko Rosenmüller
  • Gunter Saake
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7328)

Abstract

Database schemas are an integral part of many information systems (IS). New software-engineering methods, such as software product lines, allow engineers to create a high number of different programs tailored to the customer needs from a common code base. Unfortunately, these engineering methods usually do not take the database schema into account. Particularly, a tailored client program requires a tailored database schema as well to form a consistent IS. In this paper, we show the challenges of tailoring relational database schemas in software product lines. Furthermore, we present an approach to treat the client and database part of an IS in the same way using a variable database schema. Additionally, we show the benefits and discuss disadvantages of the approach during the evolution of an industrial case study, covering a time span of more than a year.

Keywords

Tailoring DB schemas feasibility study software product lines 

References

  1. 1.
    Apel, S., Kästner, C., Lengauer, C.: Featurehouse: Language-independent, automated software composition. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 221–231. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apel, S., Lengauer, C.: Superimposition: A Language-Independent Approach to Software Composition. In: Pautasso, C., Tanter, É. (eds.) SC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4954, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys 18, 323–364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batory, D., Sarvela, J., Rauschmayer, A.: Scaling step-wise refinement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(6), 355–371 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolchini, C., Quintarelli, E., Rossato, R.: Relational Data Tailoring Through View Composition. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software product lines. Addison-Wesley (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.: Generative programming: Methods, tools, and applications. Addison-Wesley (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: Merging Models with the Epsilon Merging Language (EML). In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 215–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dyreson, C., Florez, O.: Data aspects in a relational database. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1373–1376. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dyreson, C., Snodgrass, R., Currim, F., Currim, S., Joshi, S.: Weaving temporal and reliability aspects into a schema tapestry. Data Knowl. Eng. 63, 752–773 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heidenreich, F., Kopcsek, J., Wende, C.: Featuremapper: Mapping features to models. In: Comp. Proc. Int’l. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 943–944. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jossic, A., et al.: Model integration with model weaving: a case study in system architecture. In: Proc. Int’l. Conf. Systems Engineering and Modeling, pp. 79–84. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kästner, C., Apel, S., Kuhlemann, M.: Granularity in software product lines. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 311–320. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kästner, C.: Cide: Decomposing legacy applications into features. In: Demonstration at Proc. Int’l. Software Product Line Conf., pp. 149–150 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, J., Batory, D., Lengauer, C.: Feature-oriented refactoring of legacy applications. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 112–121. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahnke, W.: Towards a modular, object-relational schema design. In: Doctoral Consortium at Proc. Int’l. Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 61–71. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rashid, A.: A framework for customisable schema evolution in object-oriented databases. In: Proc. Int’l. Symp. on Database Engineering and Applications, pp. 342–346. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.: View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. Requir. Eng. 11(3), 174–193 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Liaskos, S., Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Requirements Engineering, pp. 221–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schäler, M., Leich, T., Siegmund, N., Kästner, C., Saake, G.: Generierung maßgeschneiderter Relationenschemata in Softwareproduktlinien mittels Superimposition. In: Proc. GI-Fachtagung Datenbanksysteme für Business, Technologie und Web, pp. 414–534. GI (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siegmund, N., Kästner, C., Rosenmüller, M., Heidenreich, F., Apel, S., Saake, G.: Bridging the gap between variability in client application and database schema. In: Proc. GI-Fachtagung Datenbanksysteme für Business, Technologie und Web, pp. 297–306. GI (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spaccapietra, S., Parent, C.: View integration: A step forward in solving structural conflicts. IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng. 6(2), 258–274 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ye, P., Peng, X., Xue, Y., Jarzabek, S.: A case study of variation mechanism in an industrial product line. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Reuse, pp. 126–136. Springer (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Schäler
    • 1
  • Thomas Leich
    • 2
  • Marko Rosenmüller
    • 1
  • Gunter Saake
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of MagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.METOP Research InstituteMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations