Advertisement

Developing a Software Product Line for Train Control: A Case Study of CVL

  • Andreas Svendsen
  • Xiaorui Zhang
  • Roy Lind-Tviberg
  • Franck Fleurey
  • Øystein Haugen
  • Birger Møller-Pedersen
  • Gøran K. Olsen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6287)

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of creating a software product line for the train signaling domain. The Train Control Language (TCL) is a DSL which automates the production of source code for computers controlling train stations. By applying the Common Variability Language (CVL), which is a separate and generic language to define variability on base models, we form a software product line of stations. We discuss the process and experience of using CVL to automate the production of three real train stations. A brief discussion about the verification needed for the generated products is also included.

Keywords

Product Line Product Model Software Product Line Train Station Base Language 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    EMF, Eclipse Modeling Framework Project (Emf), http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/
  2. 2.
    Endresen, J., Carlson, E., Moen, T., Alme, K.-J., Haugen, Ø., Olsen, G.K., Svendsen, A.: Train Control Language - Teaching Computers Interlocking. In: Computers in Railways XI (COMPRAIL 2008), Toledo, Spain (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fagan, M.E.: Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development. IBM Systems Journal 15, 182–211 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fleurey, F., Haugen, Ø., Møller-Pedersen, B., Olsen, G.K., Svendsen, A., Zhang, X.: A Generic Language and Tool for Variability Modeling. SINTEF, Oslo, Norway, Technical Report SINTEF A13505 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haugen, O., Møller-Pedersen, B., Oldevik, J., Olsen, G.K., Svendsen, A.: Adding Standardized Variability to Domain Specific Languages. In: SPLC 2008, Limerick, Ireland (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, A.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (Foda) Feasibility Study. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Tech. Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21 (November 1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    MOF, The Metaobject Facility Specification, http://www.omg.org/mof/
  8. 8.
    Oldevik, J.: Mofscript Eclipse Plug-In: Metamodel-Based Code Generation. In: Eclipse Technology Workshop (EtX) at ECOOP 2006, Nantes (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Svendsen, A.: Application Reconfiguration Based on Variability Transformations. School of Computing, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, Technical Report 2009-566 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svendsen, A., Olsen, G.K., Endresen, J., Moen, T., Carlson, E., Alme, K.-J., Haugen, O.: The Future of Train Signaling. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, X.: Synthesize Software Product Line. In: The 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Cape Town, South Africa (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Svendsen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiaorui Zhang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Roy Lind-Tviberg
    • 1
  • Franck Fleurey
    • 2
  • Øystein Haugen
    • 2
  • Birger Møller-Pedersen
    • 3
  • Gøran K. Olsen
    • 2
  1. 1.ABBBillingstadNorway
  2. 2.SINTEFOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations