Advertisement

A Hierarchical Variability Model for Software Product Lines

  • Dilian Gurov
  • Bjarte M. Østvold
  • Ina Schaefer
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 336)

Abstract

A key challenge in software product line engineering is to represent solution space variability in an economic, yet easily understandable fashion. We introduce the notion of hierarchical variability models to describe families of products in a manner that facilitates their modular design and analysis. In this model, a family is represented by a common set of artifacts and a set of variation points with associated variants. A variant is again a hierarchical variability model, leading to a hierarchical structure. These models, however, are not unique with respect to the families they define. We therefore propose a quantitative measure on hierarchical variability models that expresses the degree to which a variability model captures commonality and variability in a family. Further, by imposing well-formedness constraints, we identify a class of variability models that, by construction, have maximal measure and are unique for the families they define. For this class of simple families, we provide a procedure that reconstructs their hierarchical variability model. The reconstructed model can be used to drive various static analyses by divide-and-conquer reasoning. Hierarchical variability models strike a balance between the formalism’s expressiveness and the desirable property of model uniqueness. We illustrate the approach by a small product line of Java classes.

Keywords

Product Family Variation Point Software Product Line Formal Concept Analysis Variability Model 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal, R., Imielinski, T., Swami, A.N.: Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 207–216 (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alves, V., Schwanninger, C., Barbosa, L., Rashid, A., Sawyer, P., Rayson, P., Pohl, C., Rummler, A.: An exploratory study of information retrieval techniques in domain analysis. In: SPLC, pp. 67–76 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apel, S., Janda, F., Trujillo, S., Kästner, C.: Model Superimposition in Software Product Lines. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 4–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)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.
    Clarke, D., Helvensteijn, M., Schaefer, I.: Abstract delta modeling. In: GPCE. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Czarnecki, K., She, S., Wasowski, A.: Sample spaces and feature models: There and back again. In: SPLC, pp. 22–31 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomaa, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML. Addison Wesley (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gurov, D., Østvold, B.M., Schaefer, I.: A hierarchical variablility model for software product lines. Technical Report TRITA-CSC-TCS 2011:1, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 26 pages (2011), http://www.csc.kth.se/~dilian/Papers/techrep-11-1.pdf
  12. 12.
    Haber, A., Rendel, H., Rumpe, B., Schaefer, I., van der Linden, F.: Hierarchical variability modeling for software architectures. In: Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2011 (2011) (to appear)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haugen, Ø., Møller-Pedersen, B., Oldevik, J., Olsen, G., Svendsen, A.: Adding Standardized Variability to Domain Specific Languages. In: Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2008), pp. 139–148. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loesch, F., Ploedereder, E.: Optimization of variability in software product lines. In: SPLC, pp. 151–162 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niu, N., Easterbrook, S.: Concept analysis for product line requirements. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Aspect-oriented Software Development, AOSD 2009, pp. 137–148 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noda, N., Kishi, T.: Aspect-Oriented Modeling for Variability Management. In: Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2008), pp. 213–222. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pérez, J., Díaz, J., Soria, C.C., Garbajosa, J.: Plastic Partial Components: A solution to support variability in architectural components. In: WICSA/ECSA, pp. 221–230 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering - Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryssel, U., Ploennigs, J., Kabitzsch, K.: Automatic variation-point identification in function-block-based models. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering, GPCE 2010, pp. 23–32. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schaefer, I., Gurov, D., Soleimanifard, S.: Compositional Algorithmic Verification of Software Product Lines. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6957, pp. 184–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Snelting, G.: Reengineering of configurations based on mathematical concept analysis. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 5, 146–189 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Ommering, R.: Software reuse in product populations. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 31(7), 537–550 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Völter, M., Groher, I.: Product Line Implementation using Aspect-Oriented and Model-Driven Software Development. In: Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2007), pp. 233–242. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ziadi, T., Hëlouët, L., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Towards a UML Profile for Software Product Lines. In: van der Linden, F.J. (ed.) PFE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3014, pp. 129–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dilian Gurov
    • 1
  • Bjarte M. Østvold
    • 2
  • Ina Schaefer
    • 3
  1. 1.Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Norwegian Computing CenterOsloNorway
  3. 3.TU BraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations