RubyTL: A Practical, Extensible Transformation Language
Model transformation is a key technology of model driven development approaches. A lot of research therefore is being carried out to understand the nature of model transformations and find out desirable characteristics of transformation languages. In recent years, several transformation languages have been proposed.
We present the RubyTL transformation language which has been designed as an extensible language–a set of core features along with an extension mechanism. RubyTL provides a framework for experimenting with features of hybrid transformation languages. In addition, RubyTL has been created as a domain specific language embedded in the Ruby programming language. In this paper we show the core features of the language through a simple example and explain how the language can be extended to provide more features.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Object Management Group. MDA Guide version 1.0.1. omg/2003-06-01, OMG document (2003) Google Scholar
- 2.Greenfield, J., Short, K., Cook, S., Kent, S.: Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools. Wiley, Chichester (2004)Google Scholar
- 3.Fowler, M.: Language workbenches: The killer-app for domain specific languages? (June 2005), http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/languageWorkbench.html
- 4.Clark, T., Evans, A., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied Metamodelling, A Foundation for Language Driven Development. Xactium (2004)Google Scholar
- 5.Muller, P.-A., Fleurey, F., Vojtisek, D., Drey, Z., Pollet, D., Fondement, F., Studer, P., Jézéquel, J.-M.: On executable meta-languages applied to model transformations. In: Model Transformations In Practice Workshop, Montego Bay, Jamaica (2005)Google Scholar
- 6.Bézivin, J., Dupé, G., Jouault, F., Pitette, G., Rougui, J.E.: First experiments with the ATL model transformation language: Transforming XSLT into XQuery. In: OOPSLA 2003 Workshop, Anaheim, California (2003)Google Scholar
- 7.Lawley, M., Steel, J.: Practical declarative model transformation with Tefkat. In: Model Transformations In Practice Workshop, Montego Bay, Jamaica (2005)Google Scholar
- 8.OMG. Revised submission for MOF 2.0 Query/View/Transformation (2005), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?ad/2005-03-02
- 10.Thomas, D.: Programming Ruby. The Pragmatic Programmers Guide. Pragmatic Bookshelf (2004)Google Scholar
- 11.Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained, The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
- 12.Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Classification of model transformation approaches. In: Proceedings of the 2nd OOPSLA Workshop on Generative Technique in the Context of the Model Driven Architecture, Anaheim (October 2003)Google Scholar
- 13.Gardner, T., Griffin, C., Koehler, J., Hauser, R.: Review of OMG MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations submissions and recommendations towards final standard (2003)Google Scholar
- 16.Mens, T., Van Gorp, P.: A taxonomy of model transformation. In: Glück, R., Lowry, M. (eds.) GPCE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3676. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar