SelfSync: A Dynamic Round-Trip Engineering Environment

  • Ellen Van Paesschen
  • Wolfgang De Meuter
  • Maja D’Hondt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)


Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) advocates the generation of software applications from models, which are views on certain aspects of the software. In this paper, we focus on a particular setup which consists of a graphical data modeling view and a view on an object-oriented implementation, which can be either textual or graphical. A challenge that arizes in the context of MDE is the notion of Round-Trip Engineering (RTE), where elements from both views can be manipulated and thus need to be synchronized. We systematically identify four fundamental RTE scenarios. In this paper, we employ the framework of these scenarios for explaining SelfSync, our approach and tool for providing dynamic support for RTE. In SelfSync, the entities of the data modeling view and the corresponding implementation objects are one and the same. Additionally, we present a comparison with related work accompanied by an extensive discussion.


Method Body Data Slot Entity View Implementation Object Population Object 
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.
    Assman, U.: Automatic roundtrip engineering. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 82Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boger, M., Baier, T., Wienberg, F., Lamersdorf, W.: Extreme modeling, pp. 175–189 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chambers, C., Ungar, D., Chang, B.-W., Holzle, U.: Parents are shared parts of objects: Inheritance and encapsulation in SELF. Lisp and Symbolic Computation 4(3) (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model - toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, P.P.: Er vs. oo. In: Pernul, G., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ER 1992. LNCS, vol. 645, pp. 1–2. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demeyer, S., Ducasse, S., Tichelaar, S.: Why unified is not universal? In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 630–644. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.B.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley World Student Series (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fong, J.: Mapping extended entity relationship model to object modeling technique. SIGMOD Record 24(3), 18–22 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fowler, M., Scott, K.: UML distilled: a brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gogolla, M., Herzig, R., Conrad, S., Denker, G., Vlachantonis, N.: Integrating the er approach in an oo environment. In: Elmasri, R.A., Kouramajian, V., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 1993. LNCS, vol. 823, pp. 376–389. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henriksson, A., Larsson, H.: A definition of round-trip engineering. Technical report, Linkopings Universitet, Sweden (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herzig, R., Gogolla, M.: Transforming conceptual data models into an object model. In: Pernul, G., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ER 1992. LNCS, vol. 645, pp. 280–298. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, C.-T., Chang, S.-K., Chrysanthis, P.K.: Database schema evolution using EVER diagrams. Advanced Visual Interfaces, 123–132 (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Navathe, S.B., Pillalamarri, M.K.: Ooer: Toward making the e-r approach object-oriented. In: Entity-Relationship Approach: A Bridge to the User, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enity-Relationship Approach, Rome, Italy, November 16-18, pp. 185–206. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paesschen, E.V., D’Hondt, M., Meuter, W.D.: Rapid prototyping of extended entity relationship models. In: Proceedings ISIM 2005, Hradec Nad Moravici, Czech Republic, April 2005, pp. 194–209. MARQ (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paesschen, E.V., Meuter, W.D., D’Hondt, T.: Domain modeling in self yields warped hierarchies. In: Malenfant, J., Østvold, B.M. (eds.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3344, p. 101. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pawson, R., Matthews, R.: Naked objects: a technique for designing more expressive systems. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 36(12), 61–67 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schewe, K.-D.: UML: A modern dinosaur? In: Proc. 10th European-Japanese Conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases, Saariselkä (Finland), IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sendall, S., Kuster, J.: Taming model round-trip engineering. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Best Practices for Model-Driven Software Development at OOPSLA 2004, Vancouver, Canada (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ungar, D., Smith, R.B.: Self: The power of simplicity. In: OOPSLA 1987, pp. 227–242. ACM Press, New York (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Naked objects framework:
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ellen Van Paesschen
    • 1
  • Wolfgang De Meuter
    • 2
  • Maja D’Hondt
    • 2
  1. 1.Programming Technology LaboratoryVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Informatique Fondamentale de LilleUniversité des Sciences et Technologies de LilleVilleneuve d’Ascq, Cédex, LilleFrance

Personalised recommendations