Advertisement

Architecture Derivation in Product Line Development Through Model Transformations

  • Javier González-HuertaEmail author
  • Emilio Insfran
  • Silvia Abrahão
  • John D. McGregor
Conference paper

Abstract

Product architecture derivation is a crucial activity in Software Product Line (SPL) development since any inadequate decisions made during the architecture design directly impact on the non-functional properties of the product under development. Although some methods for architecture derivation have been proposed in the last few years, there is still a need for approaches that model the impact among architectural design decisions and quality attributes and use this information to drive the derivation of high-quality product architectures. This paper, presents a set of guidelines for the definition of pattern-based quality-driven architectural transformations in a Model-Driven SPL development environment. These guidelines rely both on a multimodel that represents the product line from multiple viewpoints as well as on a derivation process that makes use of this multimodel to derive a product architecture that meets the quality requirements. The feasibility of the approach is illustrated using a case study on the automotive domain.

Keywords

Software product lines Architectural patterns Quality attributes Model transformations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the MULTIPLE project (MICINN TIN2009-13838) and the ValI+D program (ACIF/201 1/235).

References

  1. 1.
    Clements P, Northrop L (2007) Software product lines: practices and patterns. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosch J (2000) Design and use of software architectures. Adopting and evolving product-line approach. Addison-Wesley, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gonzalez-Huerta J, Insfran E, Abrahao S, McGregor JD (2012) Non-functional requirements in model-driven software product line engineering. In: 4th International workshop on non-functional system properties in domain specific modeling languages, InsbruckGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    González-Huerta J, Insfran E, Abrahão S (2012) A multimodel for integrating quality assessment in model-driven engineering. In: 8th International conference on the quality of information and communications technology (Quatic2012), LisbonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Insfrán E, Abrahão S, González-Huerta J, McGregor JD, Ramos I (2012) A multimodeling approach for quality-driven architecture derivation. In: 21st International conference on information systems development (ISD2012), PratoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drago ML, Ghezzi C, Mirandola R (2011) Towards quality driven exploration of transformation spaces. In: 14th Conference on model driven engineering languages and systems, Wellington, LNCS, vol 6981, pp 2–16Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li R, Etemaadi R, Emmerich MTM, Chaudron M (2011) An evolutionary multiobjective optimization approach to component-based software architecture design. IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, New Orleans, LA, pp 432–439Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maswar F, Chaudron M, Radovanovic I, Bondarev E (2007) Improving architectural quality properties through model transformations. In: 2007 International conference on software engineering research and practice, Las Vegas, NV, pp 687-693Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Merilinna J (2005) A tool for quality-driven architecture model transformation. Ph.D. thesis, VVT Technical Research Centre of Finland, VuorimiehentieGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Botterweck G, O’Brien L, Thiel S (2007) Model-driven derivation of product architectures. In: 22th International conference on automated software engineering, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cabello ME, Ramos I, Gómez A, Limón R (2009) Baseline-oriented modeling: an MDA approach based on software product lines for the expert systems development. In: 1st Asia conference on intelligent information and database systems, VietnamGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perovich D, Rossel PO, Bastarrica MC (2009) Feature model to product architectures: applying MDE to software product lines. In: 8th IEEE/IFIP and 3rd European conference on software architecture, Helsinki, pp 201–210Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC 25000:2005 Software Engineering (2005) Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). Guide to SQuaRE. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=35683
  14. 14.
    Barkmeyer EJ, Feeney AB, Denno P, Flater DW, Libes DE, Steves MP, Wallace EK (2003) Concepts for automating systems integration. In: NISTIR 6928, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides JO (1994) Design patterns, elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gómez A, Ramos I (2010) Cardinality-based feature modeling and model-driven engineering: fitting them together. In: 4th International workshop on variability modeling of software intensive systems, LinzGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Czarnecki K, Kim CH (2005) Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: a progress report. In: International workshop on software factories at OOPSLA, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feiler PH, Gluch DP, Hudak J (2006) The architecture analysis & design language (AADL): an introduction. Technical report CMU/SEI-2006-TN-01 1. SEI, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Douglass BP (2002) Real-time design patterns: robust scalable architecture for real-time systems. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bass L, Clements P, Kazman R (2003) Software architecture in practice, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meta Object Facility (MOF) (2003) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification. http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.1/
  22. 22.
    Saaty TL (1990) The analytical hierarchical process. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier González-Huerta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emilio Insfran
    • 1
  • Silvia Abrahão
    • 1
  • John D. McGregor
    • 2
  1. 1.ISSI Research GroupUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations