A Taxonomy on Component-Based Software Engineering Methods

  • Christian Bunse
  • Felix C. Freiling
  • Nicole Levy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3938)


The component paradigm promises to address many of the productivity and quality problems currently faced by the software industry. However, its correct application requires systematic, methodological support. A wide range of theoretical and practical methods have been developed in the context of the component paradigm. A taxonomy of these methods can provide a tool for increasing the understanding of the ways in which component-based development is currently addressed and directions for future development. This paper outlines a taxonomy based on the fundamental criteria and definitions, and provides examples to justify this classification. It can therefore serve as a first orientation for new researchers interested in the area of component-based software engineering.


Model Drive Architecture Model Drive Architecture Methodological Support Open Research Issue Software Engineer Institute 
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., Bayer, J., Bunse, C., et al.: Component-Based Product Line Engineering with UML. Pearson, London (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aonix, A.: Service and component based development: using the select perspective. In: ACM Computing Reviews 9, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co, Inc., Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayer, J., Flege, O., Knauber, P., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., Schmid, K., Widen, T., DeBaud, J.M.: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Reusability (SSR 1999), Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 122–131 (May 1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blum, B.I.: A Taxonomy of Software Development Methods. Communication of the ACM 37(11) (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Booch, B.: Object Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 2nd edn., Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, California (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bunse, C., von Knethen, A.: Vorgehensmodelle Kompakt. Spektrum Verlag (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Links on Objects & Components (last visited, June 2005),
  8. 8.
    Cheesman, J., Daniels, J.: UML Components: A simple Process for Specifying Component-Based Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coad, P., Yourdon, E.: Object-Oriented Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coleman, D., Arnold, P., Bodoff, S., Dollin, C., Gilchrist, H., Hayes, F., Jeremaes, P.: Object-Oriented Development: The Fusion Method. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cribbs, J., Roe, C., Moon, S.: An Evaluation of Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Methodologies, 75 pages. SIGS Books, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, Components and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fichman, R.G., Kemerer, C.F.: Object-Oriented and Conventional Analysis and Development Methodologies: Comparison and Critique, Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, M.I.T., CISR WP. No. 230, pages 38 (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuggetta, A., Sfardini, L.: Software Engineering Methods and Technologies, Technical Report, Cefriel (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graham, I., Henderson-Sellers, B., Younessi, H.: The OPEN Process Specification. Addison Wesley, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    HUM Working Group, HOOD User Manual, HOOD User Group (July 1994) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hutt, T.F. (ed.): Object Analysis and Design – Description of Methods. OMG Press (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering - A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study, Tech. Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute (SEI) (November 1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kruchten, P.B.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marciniak, J.J. (ed.): Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MARMOT (2005),
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language Specification (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reenskaug, T., Wold, P., Lehne, O.: Working with Objects: The OOram Software Development Method. Manning/Prentice Hall (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., Lorensen, W.: Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Software Engineering Institute. Software Engineering Body of Knowledge Version 1.0: Available at,
  27. 27.
    Selic, B., Gullekson, G., Ward, P.T.: Real-Time Object-Oriented Modeling. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shlaer, S., Mellor, S.J.: The shlaer-mellor method (1998), Pages on the WWW which can be found at,
  29. 29.
    Weiss, D.M., Lai, C.T.R.: Software Product Line Engineering: A family Based Software Engineering Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Bunse
    • 1
  • Felix C. Freiling
    • 2
  • Nicole Levy
    • 3
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institut Experimentelles Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Informatik 1Universität MannheimMannheimGermany
  3. 3.PRiSMUniversity of VersaillesVersaillesFrance

Personalised recommendations