Monitoring System-of-Systems Requirements in Multi Product Lines
[Context and motivation] Large-scale software-intensive systems are often considered as systems of systems comprising several interrelated product lines from which system variants are derived to meet the overall requirements. [Question/problem] If multiple teams and experts configure these individual systems, their individual configuration choices might conflict with the system-of-systems requirements. [Principal ideas/results] This research preview paper presents our ongoing work on a tool-supported approach for monitoring system-of-systems requirements formalized as constraints during distributed product derivation in multi product lines. [Contribution] The approach allows detecting violations of multi system requirements during the configuration of individual systems and provides immediate feedback to the involved configurers. Our approach is integrated in the product configuration tool DOPLER developed in cooperation with an industrial partner.
KeywordsIndividual System DOPLER Product Automate Software Engineer Multiple Team Mold Thickness
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Holl, G., Grünbacher, P., Elsner, C., Klambauer, T.: Supporting awareness during collaborative and distributed configuration of multi product lines. In: Proc. of the 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Hong Kong (2012) (to appear)Google Scholar
- 3.Northrop, L., Feiler, P., Gabriel, R., Goodenough, J., Linger, R., Longstaff, T., Kazman, R., Klein, M., Schmidt, D., Sullivan, K., Wallnau, K.: Ultra-Large-Scale Systems – The Software Challenge of the Future. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon (2006)Google Scholar
- 6.Vogl, H., Lehner, K., Grünbacher, P., Egyed, A.: Reconciling requirements and architectures with the CBSP approach in an iPhone app project. In: 19th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Trento, Italy, pp. 273–278 (2011)Google Scholar
- 8.Mendonca, M., Cowan, D., Oliveira, T.: A process-centric approach for coordinating product configuration decisions. In: Proc. of the 40th Annual Hawaii Int’l Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
- 9.Hubaux, A., Classen, A., Heymans, P.: Formal modelling of feature configuration workflows. In: Proc. of the 13th Int’l Software Product Line Conference, San Francisco, USA, pp. 221–230 (2009)Google Scholar
- 12.Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for the UML. In: Proc. of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 381–390 (2006)Google Scholar
- 13.Vierhauser, M., Grünbacher, P., Egyed, A., Rabiser, R., Heider, W.: Flexible and scalable consistency checking on product line variability models. In: Pecheur, C., Andrews, J., Nitto, E.D. (eds.) Proceedings 25th IEEE/ACM Int’l Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Antwerp, Belgium, September 20-24, pp. 63–72. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
- 14.Vierhauser, M., Grünbacher, P., Heider, W., Holl, G., Lettner, D.: Applying a consistency checking framework for heterogeneous models and artifacts in industrial product lines. In: Proc. of the 15th Int’l Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages & Systems, Innsbruck, Austria (2012)Google Scholar
- 15.Rabiser, R., Grünbacher, P., Lehofer, M.: A qualitative study on user guidance capabilities in product configuration tools. In: Proc. of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Essen, Germany (2012)Google Scholar
- 16.Salinesi, C., Diaz, D., Djebbi, O., Mazo, R., Rolland, C.: Exploiting the versatility of constraint programming over finite domains to integrate product line models. In: 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2009, pp. 375–376 (2009)Google Scholar