Comprehensive System for Systematic Case-Driven Software Reuse

  • Michał Śmiałek
  • Audris Kalnins
  • Elina Kalnina
  • Albert Ambroziewicz
  • Tomasz Straszak
  • Katharina Wolter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5901)


Reuse of software artifacts (blueprints and code) is normally associated with organising a systematic reuse framework most often constructed for a specific problem domain. In this paper we present a system (language, tool, reuse process) where software reuse is based on building and retrieving of so-called software cases (large compound artifacts) that can be reused between domains. The system is opportunistic in that software cases result from usual (non-reuse oriented) activities where also semantic information is added. This information is used to support regular development but may serve later to retrieve software cases. Having this common semantic basis, we can organise a systematic cross-domain reuse process where application logic of one system can be reused for systems within different domains.


Problem Domain Sequence Diagram Software Product Line Application Logic Business Logic 
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.
    McIlroy, M.D.: Mass Produced Software Components. In: Naur, P., Randell, B., Buxton, J.N. (eds.) Software Engineering Concepts and Techniques, Proceedings of NATO Conference on Software Engineering, New York, pp. 88–98 (1969)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sherif, K., Vinze, A.: Barriers to Adoption of Software Reuse. A Qualitative Study. Information and Management 41, 159–175 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frakes, W.B., Kang, K.: Software Reuse Research: Status and Future. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(7), 529–536 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobson, I., Griss, M., Jonsson, P.: Software Reuse: Architecture Process and Organization for Business Success. ACM Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griss, M.L., Favaro, J., d’ Alessandro, M.: Integrating Feature Modeling with the RSEB. In: Proc. 5th International Conference on Software Reuse, pp. 76–85 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomaa, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML: From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertolino, A., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Lami, G.: Product Line Use Cases: Scenario-Based Specification and Testing of Requirements. In: Software Product Lines - Research Issues in Engineering and Management, pp. 425–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kamsties, E., Pohl, K., Reis, S., Reuys, A.: Testing Variabilities in Use Case Models. In: van der Linden, F.J. (ed.) PFE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3014, pp. 6–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi, W.S., Kang, S., Choi, H., Baik, J.: Automated generation of product use case scenarios in product line development. In: 8th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology, CIT 2008, pp. 760–765 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biddle, R., Noble, J., Tempero, E.: Supporting Reusable Use Cases. In: Gacek, C. (ed.) ICSR 2002. LNCS, vol. 2319, pp. 210–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Egyed, A., Grünbacher, P.: Supporting Software Understanding with Automated Requirements Traceability. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 15(5), 783–810 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robinson, W.N., Woo, H.G.: Finding Reusable UML Sequence Diagrams Automatically. IEEE Software 21(5), 60–67 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blok, M.C., Cybulski, J.L.: Reusing UML Specifications in a Constrained Application Domain. In: Proceedings of 1998 Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 196–202 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaindl, H., Śmiałek, M., Svetinovic, D., Ambroziewicz, A., Bojarski, J., Nowakowski, W., Straszak, T., Schwarz, H., Bildhauer, D., Brogan, J.P., Mukasa, K.S., Wolter, K., Krebs, T.: Requirements Specification Language Definition. Project Deliverable D2.4.1, ReDSeeDS Project (2007),
  16. 16.
    Śmiałek, M., Bojarski, J., Nowakowski, W., Ambroziewicz, A., Straszak, T.: Complementary Use Case Scenario Representations Based on Domain Vocabularies. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 544–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaindl, H.: Using Hypertext for Semiformal Representation in Requirements Engineering Practice. The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 2, 149–173 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalnins, A., Barzdins, J., Celms, E.: Model Transformation Language MOLA. In: Aßmann, U., Aksit, M., Rensink, A. (eds.) MDAFA 2003. LNCS, vol. 3599, pp. 62–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.1.1, formal/07-02-05 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Venkatesh, V., Smith, R.H., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly 27, 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michał Śmiałek
    • 1
  • Audris Kalnins
    • 2
  • Elina Kalnina
    • 2
  • Albert Ambroziewicz
    • 1
  • Tomasz Straszak
    • 1
  • Katharina Wolter
    • 3
  1. 1.Warsaw University of TechnologyPoland
  2. 2.IMCS University of LatviaLatvia
  3. 3.HITeC e.V.University of HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations