Advertisement

Abstract

Software product line engineering mainly deals with specifying and developing core assets that can be utilized and adapted into specific product artifacts. Feature-oriented and UML-based modeling methods have been proposed for managing and supporting core assets specification. While these methods get a lot of attention in software product line engineering literature, their comparison in terms of comprehension is somewhat neglected. Being suitable for early stages of core assets development, this work aims at performing comparative analysis and discussing their advantages and limitations in view of two main stakeholders: developers and product customers. To this end, we conducted two experiments for examining the comprehension of core assets specification in feature-oriented CBFM and UML-based ADOM. The results showed that the only significant difference in terms of comprehension between these methods is in variability specification; developers may better understand the locations at which variability occurs and the ways to realize variability in ADOM.

Keywords

variability software product line engineering domain analysis UML feature-orientation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alves de Oliveira, E., Gimenes, I.: A Variability Management Process for Software Products Lines. In: The 2005 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, pp. 225–241 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachmann, F., Clements, P.C.: Variability in Software Product Lines. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2005-TR-012 05tr012 (2005), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/05tr012.cfm
  3. 3.
    Clauß, M.: Generic Modeling using UML extensions for variability. In: OOPSLA 2001 Workshop on Domain Specific Visual Languages (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clauß, M.: Modeling variability with UML. In: GCSE 2001 Young Researchers Workshop (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coriat, M., Jourdan, J., Fabien, B.: The SPLIT method: building product lines for software-intensive systems. In: The 1st Conference on Software Product Lines: Experience and Research Directions, pp. 147–166 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.P.: Cardinality-based Feature Modeling and Constraints: A Progress Report. In: OOPSLA Workshop on Software Factories (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eriksson, M., Börstler, J., Borg, K.: The PLUSS approach - domain modeling with features, use cases and use case realizations. In: Obbink, H., Pohl, K. (eds.) SPLC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3714, pp. 33–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frakes, W.B., Kyo, K.: Software Reuse Research: Status and Future. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(7), 529–536 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomaa, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML: From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Griss, M., Favaro, J., d’Alessandro, M.: Integrating Feature Modeling with the RSEB. In: The 5th International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR 1998), pp. 76–85 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halmans, G., Pohl, K.: Communicating the Variability of a Software-Product Family to Customers. Software and Systems Modeling 2(1), 15–36 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halmans, G., Pohl, K., Sikora, E.: Documenting application-specific adaptations in software product line engineering. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 109–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaejoon, L., Dirk, M.: Feature-Oriented Variability Management in Product Line Engineering. Communications of the ACM 49(12), 55–59 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kang, K. Lee, J.: FOPLE – Feature-Oriented Product Line Software Engineering: Principles and Guidelines, Pohang University of Science and Technology (2002) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, A.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kitchenham, B.A., Lawrence, S., Lesley, P., Pickard, M., Jones, P.W., Hoaglin, D.C., Emam, K.E.: Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(8), 721–734 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kyo, C.K., Sajoong, K., Jaejoon, L., Kijoo, K., Euiseob, S., Moonhang, H.: FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with Domain-Specific Reference Architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5(1), 143–168 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matinlassi, M.: Comparison of Software Product Line Architecture Design Methods: Comparison of Software Product Line Architecture Design Methods: COPA, FAST, FORM, KobrA and QADA. In: The 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004), pp. 127–136 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morisio, M., Travassos, G., Stark, M.: Extending UML to support Domain Analysis. In: The 15th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, p. 321 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A.: Utilizing Domain Models for Application Design and Validation. Information and Software Technology 51(8), 1275–1289 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Riebisch, M., Böllert, K., Streitferdt, D., Philippow, I.: Extending Feature Diagrams with UML Multiplicities. In: The 6th Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology, IDPT 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robak, S., Franczyk, B., Politowicz, K.: Extending the UML for modeling variability for system families. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science 12(2), 285–298 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sinnema, M., Deelstraa, S.: Classifying Variability Modeling Techniques. Information and Software Technology 49(7), 717–739 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Svahnberg, M., Van Gurp, J., Bosch, J.: A Taxonomy of Variability Realization Techniques. Software Practice & Experience 35(8), 705–754 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Trigaux, J.C., Heymans, P.: Modeling Variability Requirements in Software Product Lines: A Comparative Survey. Technical Report of PLENTY project, Institut d’Informatique FUNDP, Namur, Belgium (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Webber, D., Gomaa, H.: Modeling Variability in Software Product Lines with Variation Point Model. Science of Computer Programming 53, 305–331 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering – An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ziadi, T., Hëlouët, L., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Towards a UML profile for software product lines. In: van der Linden, F.J. (ed.) PFE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3014, pp. 129–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iris Reinhartz-Berger
    • 1
  • Arava Tsoury
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations