This paper studies the notion of conflict for a variant of Delta-Oriented Programming (DOP) without features, separating out the notions of hard and soft conflict. Specifically, we define a language for this subset of DOP and give a precise, formal definitions of these notions. We then define a type system based on row-polymorphism that ensures that the computation of a well-typed product will always succeed and has an unambiguous result.


Product Line Type System Software Product Line Typing Rule Type Context 
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.
    Apel, S., Kästner, C., Größlinger, A., Lengauer, C.: Type safety for feature-oriented product lines. Autom. Softw. Eng. 17(3), 251–300 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apel, S., Kästner, C., Lengauer, C.: Feature Featherweight Java: A calculus for feature-oriented programming and stepwise refinement. In: Smaragdakis, Y., Siek, J.G. (eds.) GPCE, pp. 101–112. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apel, S., Scholz, W., Lengauer, C., Kästner, C.: Language-independent reference checking in software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development, FOSD 2010, pp. 65–71. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, D., Helvensteijn, M., Schaefer, I.: Abstract delta modeling. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering, GPCE 2010, pp. 13–22. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, D., Muschevici, R., Proença, J., Schaefer, I., Schlatte, R.: Variability Modelling in the ABS Language. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6957, pp. 204–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M.: Mapping Features to Models: A Template Approach Based on Superimposed Variants. In: Glück, R., Lowry, M. (eds.) GPCE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3676, pp. 422–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Delaware, B., Cook, W.R., Batory, D.S.: Fitting the pieces together: a machine-checked model of safe composition. In: van Vliet, H., Issarny, V. (eds.) ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 243–252. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Douence, R., Fradet, P., Südholt, M.: A Framework for the Detection and Resolution of Aspect Interactions. In: Batory, D.S., Consel, C., Taha, W. (eds.) GPCE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2487, pp. 173–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heidenreich, F.: Towards systematic ensuring well-formedness of software product lines. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development, pp. 69–74. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kästner, C., Apel, S.: Type-checking software product lines - a formal approach. In: ASE, pp. 258–267. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kästner, C., Apel, S., Trujillo, S., Kuhlemann, M., Batory, D.: Guaranteeing Syntactic Correctness for All Product Line Variants: A Language-Independent Approach. In: Oriol, M., Meyer, B. (eds.) TOOLS EUROPE 2009. LNBIP, vol. 33, pp. 175–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katz, E., Katz, S.: Incremental analysis of interference among aspects. In: Clifton, C. (ed.) FOAL, pp. 29–38. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuhlemann, M., Batory, D., Kästner, C.: Safe composition of non-monotonic features. In: Siek, J.G., Fischer, B. (eds.) GPCE, pp. 177–186. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lienhardt, M., Clarke, D.: Conflict detection in delta-oriented programming. Technical report, University of Bologna (2012),
  16. 16.
    Lienhardt, M., Clarke, D.: Row types for delta-oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems, VaMoS 2012, pp. 121–128. ACM, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lienhardt, M., Mezzina, C.A., Schmitt, A., Stefani, J.-B.: Typing Component-Based Communication Systems. In: Lee, D., Lopes, A., Poetzsch-Heffter, A. (eds.) FMOODS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5522, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Padmanabhan, P., Lutz, R.R.: Tool-supported verification of product line requirements. Autom. Softw. Eng. 12(4), 447–465 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rémy, D.: Type inference for records in natural extension of ML, pp. 67–95. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schaefer, I., Bettini, L., Damiani, F.: Compositional type-checking for delta-oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development, AOSD 2011, pp. 43–56. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schaefer, I., Bettini, L., Bono, V., Damiani, F., Tanzarella, N.: Delta-Oriented Programming of Software Product Lines. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schaefer, I., Damiani, F.: Pure delta-oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development, FOSD 2010, pp. 49–56. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thaker, S., Batory, D., Kitchin, D., Cook, W.R.: Safe composition of product lines. In: Consel, C., Lawall, J.L. (eds.) GPCE, pp. 95–104. ACM (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michäel Lienhardt
    • 1
  • Dave Clarke
    • 2
  1. 1.University of BolognaItaly
  2. 2.IBBT-DistriNet Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations