Modeling Variabilities from Software Process Lines with Compositional and Annotative Techniques: A Quantitative Study

  • Fellipe A. Aleixo
  • Uirá Kulesza
  • Edson A. Oliveira Junior
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7983)


A software process line (SPrL) represents a set of software process that share a common base of roles, practices, activities, and artifacts. Various individual approaches have been proposed to modeling software process lines. The majority of these approaches can be characterized as compositional or annotative approaches. This work presents a quantitative comparative study of the EPF Composer compositional approach, and the GenArch-P annotative approach. Our study has considered internal attributes of the specification of SPrLs, such as modularity, size and complexity. Our study has found that the GenArch-P approach presented better results in terms of size and complexity attributes, while the EPF Composer improve the modularity of SPrL specifications. We also envisioned a possible integration of the two approaches.


Software process variabilities Software process lines Compositional and annotative approaches 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rombach, H.: Integrated Software Process and Product Lines. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 83–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleixo, F., Kulesza, U., Freire, M., Costa, D., Campos Neto, E.: Modularizing Software Process Lines using Model-driven Approaches: A Comparative Study. In: 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), Wroclaw, Poland, vol. 2 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aleixo, F., Freire, M., Alencar, D., Campos, E., Kulesza, U.: A Comparative Study of Compositional and Annotative Modelling Approaches for Software Process Lines A Comparative Study of Compositional and Annotative Modelling Approaches for Software Process Lines. In: 26th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES), Natal, RN, Brazil (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Washizaki, H.: Building Software Process Line Architectures from Bottom Up. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds.) PROFES 2006. LNCS, vol. 4034, pp. 415–421. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Armbrust, O., Katahira, M., Miyamoto, Y., Münch, J., Nakao, H., Ocampo, A.: Scoping software process lines. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 14(3), 181–197 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ternité, T.: Process Lines: A Product Line Approach Designed for Process Model Development. In: 35th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, Patras, Greece, pp. 173–180 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martínez-Ruiz, T., García, F., Piattini, M.: Process Institutionalization using Software Process Lines. In: 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), Milan, Italy (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aleixo, F.A., Freire, M.A., dos Santos, W.C., Kulesza, U.: Automating the Variability Management, Customization and Deployment of Software Processes: A Model-Driven Approach. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 73, pp. 372–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freire, M., Aleixo, F., Kulesza, U., Aranha, E., Coelho, R.: Automatic Deployment and Monitoring of Software Processes: A Model-Driven Approach. In: 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), Miami Beach, USA, pp. 42–47 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alegria, J., Bastarrica, M.: Building software process lines with CASPER. In: International Conference on Software and System Process (ICSSP), Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 170–179 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Figueiredo, E., et al.: Evolving Software Product Lines with Aspects: An Empirical Study on Design Stability. In ACM, (ed.) International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Leipzig, Germany, pp.261–270 (2008) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kästner, C., Apel, S.: Integrating Compositional and Annotative Approaches for Product Line Engineering. In: GPCE Workshop on Modularization, Composition and Generative Techniques for Product Line Engineering (McGPLE), Passau, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kästner, C.: Virtual Separation of Concerns: Toward Preprocessors 2.0. Dissertation, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität, Magdeburg, Germany (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonifácio, R., Borba, P.: Modeling Scenario Variability as Crosscutting Mechanisms. In ACM (ed.) International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD), Charlottesville, Virginia, USA, pp.125–136 (2009) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eclipse Foundation: Eclipse Process Framework Project (EPF), (accessed 2012)
  16. 16.
    Aleixo, F., Freire, M., Santos, W., Kulesza, U.: A Model-driven Approach to Managing and Customizing Software Process Variabilities. In: 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, vol. 3, pp. 92–100 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.: The Goal Question Metric Approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garcia, A., Sant’Anna, C., Figueiredo, E., Kulesza, U., Lucena, C., von Staa, A.: Modularizing design patterns with aspects: a quantitative study. In: Press, A. (ed.) Aspect-Oriented Software Development Conference (AOSD), Chicago, USA, pp. 3–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Linden, F., Schmid, K., Rommes, E.: Software Product Lines in Action: The Best Industrial Practice in Product Line Engineering. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aleixo, F.: Software Process Lines, (accessed 2013)
  21. 21.
    Bendraou, R., Jézéquel, J.-M., Gervais, M.-P., Blanc, X.: A Comparison of Six UML-Based Languages for Software Process Modeling. Transactions on Software Engineering 36(5), 662–675 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martínez-Ruiz, T., García, F., Piattini, M., Münch, J.: Modelling Software Process Variability: an Empirical Study. IET Software 5(2), 172–187 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simmonds, J., Bastarrica, M., Silvestre, L., Quispe, A.: Analyzing Methodologies and Tools for Specifying Variability in Software Processes, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fellipe A. Aleixo
    • 1
  • Uirá Kulesza
    • 1
  • Edson A. Oliveira Junior
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics (DIMAP)Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)NatalBrazil
  2. 2.Informatics Department (DIN)State University of Maringá (UEM)MaringáBrazil

Personalised recommendations