Advertisement

Big Metamodels Are Evil

Package Unmerge – A Technique for Downsizing Metamodels
  • Frédéric Fondement
  • Pierre-Alain Muller
  • Laurent Thiry
  • Brice Wittmann
  • Germain Forestier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8107)

Abstract

While reuse is typically considered a good practice, it may also lead to keeping irrelevant concerns in derived elements. For instance, new metamodels are usually built upon existing metamodels using additive techniques such as profiling and package merge. With such additive techniques, new metamodels tend to become bigger and bigger, which leads to harmful overheads of complexity for both tool builders and users. In this paper, we introduce ≪ package unmerge≫ - a proposal for a subtractive relation between packages - which complements existing metamodel-extension techniques.

Keywords

Unify Modeling Language Model Transformation Object Management Group Unify Modeling Language Model Model Drive Engineering 
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.
    Szyperski, C.A.: Component software - beyond object-oriented programming. Addison-Wesley-Longman (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beugnard, A., Jézéquel, J.-M., Plouzeau, N.: Making components contract aware. IEEE Computer 32(7), 38–45 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sen, S., Moha, N., Baudry, B., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Meta-model pruning. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Muller, P.-A., Fondement, F., Baudry, B., Combemale, B.: Modeling modeling modeling. Software and System Modeling 11(3), 347–359 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group, Unified Modeling Language (UML), superstructure, version 2.4.1. OMG Document formal/2011-08-06 (August 2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group, Unified Modeling Language (UML), infrastructure, version 2.4.1. OMG Document formal/2011-08-05 (August 2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group, Meta-Object Facility (MOF) core, v2.4.1. OMG Document formal/2011-08-07 (August 2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.-M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: Akşit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schauerhuber, A., Schwinger, W., Retschitzegger, W., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G.: A survey on aspect-oriented modeling approaches. tech. rep., Vienna University of Technology (October 2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whittle, J., Jayaraman, P.K., Elkhodary, A.M., Moreira, A., Araújo, J.: MATA: A unified approach for composing UML aspect models based on graph transformation. T. Aspect-Oriented Software Development VI 6, 191–237 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lasalle, J., Peureux, F., Fondement, F.: Development of an automated MBT toolchain from UML/SysML models. ISSE 7(4), 247–256 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lasalle, J., Bouquet, F., Legeard, B., Peureux, F.: SysML to UML model transformation for test generation purpose. In: UML&FM 2010, 3rd IEEE Int. Workshop on UML and Formal Methods, Shanghai, China, pp. 1–8 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lopes, D., Hammoudi, S., de Souza, J., Bontempo, A.: Metamodel matching: Experiments and comparison. In: ICSEA, p. 2. IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falleri, J.-R., Huchard, M., Lafourcade, M., Nebut, C.: Metamodel matching for automatic model transformation generation. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Didonet, M., Fabro, D., Bézivin, J., Valduriez, P.: Weaving models with the Eclipse AMW plugin. In: Eclipse Modeling Symposium, Eclipse Summit Europe (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kagdi, H.H., Maletic, J.I., Sutton, A.: Context-free slicing of UML class models. In: ICSM, pp. 635–638. IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steel, J., Jézéquel, J.-M.: On Model Typing. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 6, 401–414 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dingel, J., Diskin, Z., Zito, A.: Understanding and improving UML package merge. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 7, 443–467 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Emerson, M., Sztipanovits, J.: Techniques for metamodel composition. In: The 6th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, OOPSLA 2006, pp. 123–139. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herzum, P., Sims, O.: Business Component Factory: A Comprehensive Overview of Component-Based Development for the Enterprise. Wiley (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frédéric Fondement
    • 1
  • Pierre-Alain Muller
    • 1
  • Laurent Thiry
    • 1
  • Brice Wittmann
    • 1
  • Germain Forestier
    • 1
  1. 1.MIPSUniversité de Haute AlsaceMulhouse cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations