Abstract

Delta-oriented programming (DOP) is a modular, yet flexible approach for implementing software product lines extending feature-oriented programming. Delta modules allow adding, modifying and removing code for generating product variants. The connection between code modifications and product features and the application ordering of delta modules is less restrictive than in FOP. However, the additional flexibility of DOP increases the complexity for ensuring that all possible product variants of a DOP SPL are well-typed. In previous work, we presented a constraint-based type system which allows analyzing each delta module in isolation, but requires a subsequent analysis step for each product variant. Some FOP SPL type systems generate a representation of all possible product variants and use a family-based analysis to ensure that all possible product variants are type safe. In this paper, we enhance the existing constraint-based type checking approach for DOP by providing a family-based analysis step which improves the product-based analysis of our previous work by making it possible to reuse the intermediate results of the analysis associated to the product variants.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Apel, S., Kästner, C., Grösslinger, A., Lengauer, C.: Type safety for feature-oriented product lines. Automated Software Engineering 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: GPCE, pp. 101–112. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batory, D.: Feature Models, Grammars, and Propositional Formulas. In: Obbink, H., Pohl, K. (eds.) SPLC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3714, pp. 7–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batory, D., Sarvela, J., Rauschmayer, A.: Scaling Step-Wise Refinement. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30(6), 355–371 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delaware, B., Cook, W., Batory, D.: A Machine-Checked Model of Safe Composition. In: FOAL, pp. 31–35. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fredkin, E.: Trie memory. Commun. ACM 3(9), 490–499 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haber, A., Kutz, T., Rendel, H., Rumpe, B., Schaefer, I.: Towards a family-based analysis of applicability conditions in architectural delta models. In: VARY: Variability for You (Workshop Co-Located with MODELS 2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Igarashi, A., Pierce, B., Wadler, P.: Featherweight Java: A minimal core calculus for Java and GJ. ACM TOPLAS 23(3), 396–450 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kästner, C., Apel, S., ur Rahman, S.S., Rosenmüller, M., Batory, D., Saake, G.: On the Impact of the Optional Feature Problem: Analysis and Case Studies. In: SPLC, pp. 181–190. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krueger, C.: Eliminating the Adoption Barrier. IEEE Software 19(4), 29–31 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lienhardt, M., Clarke, D.: Row types for delta-oriented programming. In: VaMoS, pp. 121–128 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lopez-Herrejon, R.E., Batory, D., Cook, W.: Evaluating Support for Features in Advanced Modularization Technologies. In: Gao, X.-X. (ed.) ECOOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3586, pp. 169–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering - Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Schaefer, I., Bettini, L., Damiani, F.: Compositional Type-Checking for Delta-Oriented Programming. In: AOSD 2011. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaefer, I., Damiani, F.: Pure Delta-oriented Programming. In: FOSD 2010 (2010), http://www.fosd.de/2010
  17. 17.
    Thüm, T., Apel, S., Kästner, C., Kuhlemann, M., Schaefer, I., Saake, G.: Analysis Strategies for Software Product Lines. Technical Report FIN-004-2012, School of Computer Science, University of Magdeburg, Germany (April 2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferruccio Damiani
    • 1
  • Ina Schaefer
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di TorinoTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Technische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations