Domain-specific Adaptations of Product Line Variability Modeling

  • Deepak Dhungana
  • Paul Grünbacher
  • Rick Rabiser
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


Despite its increasing popularity the widespread adoption of product line engineering is still hampered by a lack of flexible and extensible approaches that can be tailored to deal with diverse organizational specifics such as architectural styles, languages, or modeling notations. Many existing product line approaches focus on process aspects and provide general-purpose modeling approaches. In this paper we present a flexible and extensible variability modeling approach that can be adapted to domain-specific needs. The approach is supported by the meta-tool DecisionKing. The tool treats variability as a prime modeling concept and supports the domain-specific definition of dependencies between model elements. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach with two case studies in the areas of industrial automation and service-oriented systems.


Software Product Line Variability Modeling Trace Link Rule Engine 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.


  1. 1.
    F. Bachmann, M. Goedicke, J. Leite, R. Nord, K. Pohl, B. Ramesh, and A. Vilbig, “A Metamodel for Representing Variability in Product Family Development,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Software Product-Family Engineering. Siena, Italy: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2003, pp. 66–80.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Berg, J. Bishop, and D. Muthig, “Tracing Software Product Line Variability — From Problem to Solution Space,” presented at 2005 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries, White River, South Africa, 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Böckle, P. Clements, J. D. McGregor, D. Muthig, and K. Schmid, “Calculating ROI for Software Product Lines,” IEEE Software, vol. 21, pp. 23–31, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Clements and L. Northrop, Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns: SEI Series in Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Clotet, F. Xavier, P. Grünbacher, L. López, J. Marco, M. Quintus, and N. Seyff, “Requirements Modelling for Multi-Stakeholder Distributed Systems: Challenges and Techniques.,” presented at RCIS’07: 1st IEEE Int. Conf. on Research Challenges in Information Science, Quarzazate, 2007.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. M. Dashofy and A. van der Hoek, “Representing Product Family Architectures in an Extensible Architecture Description Language,” presented at 4th International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering, Bilbao, Spain, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Dhungana, P. Gruenbacher, and R. Rabiser, “DecisionKing: A Flexible and Extensible Tool for Integrated Variability Modeling,” in First International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems-Proceedings, K. Pohl, P. Heymans, K.-C. Kang, and A. Metzger, Eds. Limerick, Ireland: Lero-Technical Report 2007-01, 2007, pp. 119–128.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Dhungana, R. Rabiser, and P. Grünbacher, “Decision-Oriented Modeling of Product Line Architectures,” presented at Sixth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, Mumbai, India, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Grau, X. Franch, N. A. M. Maiden, and “REDEPEND-REACT: an architecture analysis tool,” presented at 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, 2005. Proceedings.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Grünbacher, D. Dhungana, N. Seyff, M. Quintus, R. Clotet, F. Xavier, L. López, and J. Marco, “Goal and Variability Modeling for Service-oriented System: Integrating i* with Decision Models,” presented at Software and Services Variability Management Workshop: Concepts, Models, and Tools, Helsinki, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Grundy, J. Hosking, N. Zhu, and N. Liu, “Generating Domain-Specific Visual Language Editors from High-level Tool Specifications” presented at 21st IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’06), Tokyo, Japan, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. J. Hall, “Open modeling in multi-stakeholder distributed systems: requirements engineering for the 21st Century,” presented at First Workshop on the State of the Art in Automated Software Engineering, Irvine, California, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. W. Krueger, “Software Mass Customization,” BigLever Software, Inc 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. W. Krueger, “New Methods in Software Product Line Development,” presented at 10th International Software Product Line Conference, Baltimore, USA, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Kumar and R. J. Welke, “Method Engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction” in Systems Analysis and Design: A Research Agenda: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992 pp. pp257–268.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Muthig, I. John, M. Anastasopoulos, T. Forster, J. Dörr, and K. Schmid, “GoPhone-A Software Product Line in the Mobile Phone Domain,” IESE-Report No. 025.04/E, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Northrop, “SEI’s Software Product Line Tenets,” IEEE Software, vol. 19, pp. 32–40, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    pure-systemsGmbH, “Technical White Paper, Variant Management with pure::variants,” 2004.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. Schmid and I. John, “A Customizable Approach to Full-Life Cycle Variability Management,” Journal of the Science of Computer Programming, Special Issue on Variability Management, vol. 53, pp. 259–284, 2004.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. C. Schmidt, A. Nechypurenko, and E. Wuchner, “MDD for Software Product-lines: Fact or Fiction?,” presented at 8th international Conference on Model driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS’ 05), Jamaica, 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J.-P. Tolvanen and M. Rossi, “MetaEdit+: defining and using domain-specific modeling languages and code generators,” presented at Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, Anaheim, CA, USA, 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. van der Linden, “Software Product Families in Europe: The Esaps & Cafe Projects,” IEEE Software, vol. 19, pp. 41–49, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. I. Wasserman, “Tool integration in software engineering environments,” presented at Proceedings of the international workshop on environments on Software engineering environments Chinon, France, 1990Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Wolfinger, D. Dhungana, H. Prähofer, and H. Mössenböck, “A Component Plug-in Architecture for the.NET Platform,” presented at Proceedings of 7th Joint Modular Languages Conference, (JMLC’06), Oxford, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    E. S.-K. Yu., “Modeling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering,” vol. PhD Thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    N. Zhu, J. Grundy, and J. Hosking, “Pounamu: A Meta-Tool for Multi-View Visual Language Environment Construction,” presented at 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepak Dhungana
    • 1
  • Paul Grünbacher
    • 1
  • Rick Rabiser
    • 1
  1. 1.Christian Doppler Laboratory for Automated Software EngineeringJohannes Kepler UniversitätLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations