Automated Invariant Maintenance Via OCL Compilation

  • Kurt Stirewalt
  • Spencer Rugaber
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)


UML design models, specifically their declarative OCL invariants, must be refined into delivered code. A key problem is the need to integrate this logic with programmer-written code in a non-intrusive way. We recently developed an approach, called mode components, for compiling OCL constraints into modules that implement logic for transparently maintaining these constraints at run time. Specifically, mode components are implemented as nested C++ class template instantiations. The approach makes use of a key device-status variables. The attributes of a component to which other components are sensitive are called its status. A status variable is a lightweight wrapper on a status attribute that detects changes to its value and transparently invokes a method to handle announcements to dependent components. A mode component is a wrapped code unit containing one or more status variables. The contribution of this paper is a technique for achieving this integration using metaprogramming techniques.


Unify Modelling Language Object Constraint Language Mode Component Dependent Component Unify Modelling Language Modeling 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Batory, D., O’Malley, S.: The Design and Implementation of Hierarchical Software Systems with Reusable Components. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1(4), 355–398 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bracha, G., Cook, W.: Mixin-based Inheritance. In: Proceedings ECOOP/OOPSLA 1990, October 21-25, pp. 303–311 (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Intentional Programming. In: Generative Programming, ch. 11, Addison Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeLine, R.: Avoiding Packaging Mismatch with Flexible Packaging. In: Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 97–106 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garlan, D., Scott, C.: Adding Implicit Invocation to Traditional Programming Languages. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 447–453 (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gosling, J., Yellin, F.: The Java Application Programming Interface. Window Toolkit and Applets, vol. 2. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Business Machine Corp. “Rational Software.”
  9. 9.
    Loecher, S., Ocke, S.: A Metamodel-Based OCL-Compiler for UML and MOF. Department of Computer Science. Dresden University of Technology (September 2003) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McNeely, C., Rugaber, S., Stirewalt, K., Zook, D.: DYNAMO Design Guidebook. Technical Report GIT-CC-02-37, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, June 27 (2002),
  11. 11.
    Medvidovic, N., Rosenblum, D.S., Redmiles, D.F., Robbins, J.E.: Modeling Software Architectures in UML. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11(1), 2–57 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language, Version 1.4. OMG Document Number 01-09-67, Chapter 6,
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group. XML Metadata Interchange (XMI),
  14. 14.
    Rugaber, S., Stirewalt, K.: Metaprogramming Compilation of Invariant Maintenance Wrappers from OCL Constraints. Technical Report GIT-CC-03-46, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, October 28 (2003),
  15. 15.
    Rugaber, S., Stirewalt, K.: Final Project Report / Dynamic Assembly from Models (DYNAMO). Technical Report, GIT-CC-05-03, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology (March 2005),
  16. 16.
    Smaragdakis, Y., Batory, D.: Implementing Layered Designs with Mixin Layers. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Object-oriented Programming (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sullivan, K., Notkin, D.: Reconciling Environment Integration and Software Evolution. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1(3), 229–268 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor, R.N., et al.: Chiron-1: A Software Architecture for User Interface Development, Maintenance, and Run-Time Support. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 2(2), 105–144 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19. Welcome to ArgoUML,
  20. 20.
    VanHilst, M., Notkin, D.: Using Role Components to Implement Collaboration-Based Designs. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 1996, pp. 359–369 (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt Stirewalt
    • 1
  • Spencer Rugaber
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science and EngineeringMichigan State University 
  2. 2.College of ComputingGeorgia Institute of Technology 

Personalised recommendations