A Variability-Centric Approach to Instantiating Core Assets in Product Line Engineering

  • Soo Ho Chang
  • Soo Dong Kim
  • Sung Yul Rhew
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4034)


As a key activity in product line engineering (PLE), instantiation is a task to generate target applications by resolving variability embedded in core assets. However, instantiation is often conducted in manual and ad-hoc fashion, largely replying on domain knowledge and experience. Hence, it can easily lead to technical problems in precisely specifying decision model consisting of product-specific variation points and variants, and in handling inter-variant conflicts/dependency. To overcome this difficulty, it is desirable to develop a systematic process which includes a set of systematic activities, detailed instructions, and concrete specification of artifacts. In this paper, we first propose a meta-model of a core asset to specify its key elements. Then, we represent a comprehensive process that defines key instantiation activities, representations of artifacts, and work instructions. With the proposed process, one can instantiate core assets more effectively and systematically.


Decision Model Variation Point Software Product Line Architectural Style Product Line 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Atkinson, C., et al.: Component-based Product Line Engineering with UML. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geyer, L., Becker, M.: On the Influence of Variabilities on the Application-Engineering Process of a Product Family. In: Chastek, G.J. (ed.) SPLC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2379, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayer, J., Flege, O., Knauber, P., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., Schmid, K., Widen, T., DeBaud, J.: PuLSE: A Methodology to Develop Software Product Lines. In: Proceeding of symposium for Software Reusability 1999. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bayer, J., Gacek, C., Muthig, D., Widen, T.: PuLSE-I: Deriving Instances from a Product Line Infrastructure. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deelstra, S., Sinnema, M., Bosch, J.: Product derivation in software product families: a case study. The Journal of Systems and Software 74(2), 174–194 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bayer, J., Flege, O., Knauber, P., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., Schmid, K., Widen, T., DeBaud, J.: PuLSE: A Methodology to Develop Software Product Lines. In: Proceeding of symposium for Software Reusability 1999. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang, K.C., et al.: FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with Domain-Specific Reference Architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 143–168 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clements, P., et al.: Documenting Software Architectures Views and Beyond. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomma, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML from Use Cass to Pattern-Based Software Architectures. Addsion-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim, S., Her, J., Chang, S.: A Theoretical Foundation of Variability in Component-Based Development. Information and Software Technology(IST) 47, 663–673 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sinnema, M., Deelstra, S., Nijhuis, J., Bosch, J.: COVAMOF: A Framework for Modeling Variability in Software Product Families. In: Nord, R.L. (ed.) SPLC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3154, pp. 197–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choi, S., et al.: A Systematic Methodology for Developing Component Frameworks. In: Wermelinger, M., Margaria-Steffen, T. (eds.) FASE 2004. LNCS, vol. 2984, pp. 359–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    IEEE, Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pressman, R.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC 12207 Standard for Information Technology-Software life cycle processes (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pohl, K., Bockel, G., Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soo Ho Chang
    • 1
  • Soo Dong Kim
    • 1
  • Sung Yul Rhew
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations