Advertisement

FdConfig: A Constraint-Based Interactive Product Configurator

  • Denny SchneeweissEmail author
  • Petra Hofstedt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7773)

Abstract

We present a constraint-based approach to interactive product configuration with arithmetic constraints and support for optimization. Our configurator tool FdConfig is based on feature models (from software product line engineering) for the representation of the valid product variants. Such models can be directly mapped into constraint satisfaction problems and dealt with by appropriate constraint solvers. During the interactive configuration process the user generates new constraints as a result of his configuration decisions and even may retract constraints posted earlier. We discuss the configuration process, explain the underlying techniques and show optimizations.

Keywords

Feature Model Constraint Programming Constraint Satisfaction Problem Interactive Configuration Consequence Decision 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Benavides, D., Trinidad, P., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated reasoning on feature models. In: Pastor, O., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 491–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benavides, D., Segura, S., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: a literature review. Inf. Syst. 35(6), 615–636 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ChocoSolver. http://www.emn.fr/z-info/choco-solver/. Accessed 3 Feb 2012
  4. 4.
    Classen, A., Boucher, Q., Faber, P., Heymans, P.: The TVL specification. Technical Report P-CS-TR SPLBT-00000003, PReCISE Research Center, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gecode - Generic Constraint Development Environment. http://www.gecode.org. Accessed 3 Feb 2012
  7. 7.
    Hadzic, T., Andersen, H.R.: An introduction to solving interactive configuration problems. Technical Report TR-2004-49, The IT University of Copenhagen (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hadzic, T., Subbarayan, S., Jensen, R.M., Andersen, H.R., Møller, J., Hulgaard, H.: Fast backtrack-free product configuration using a precompiled solution space representation. In: International Conference on Economic, Technical and Organizational Aspects of Product Configuration Systems (PETO), pp. 131–138 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hofstedt, P.: Multiparadigm Constraint Programming Languages. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    JaCoP - Java Constraint Programming solver. http://jacop.osolpro.com/. Accessed 3 Feb 2012
  11. 11.
    Janota, M., Botterweck, G., Grigore, R., Marques-Silva, J.: How to complete an interactive configuration process? In: van Leeuwen, J., Muscholl, A., Peleg, D., Pokorný, J., Rumpe, B. (eds.) SOFSEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 5901, pp. 528–539. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janota, M.: Do SAT solvers make good configurators?. In: First Workshop on Analyses of Software Product Lines (ASPL), September 2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    John, U., Geske, U.: Constraint-based configuration of large systems. In: Bartenstein, O., Geske, U., Hannebauer, M., Yoshie, O. (eds.) INAP 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2543, pp. 217–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Spencer Peterson, A.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (foda). Feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, ESD-90-TR-222, SW Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karataş, A.S., Oğuztüzün, H., Doğru, A.: Mapping extended feature models to constraint logic programming over finite domains. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 286–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kearfott, R.B.: Interval computations: introduction, uses, and resources. Euromath Bull. 2, 95–112 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mazo, R., Salinesi, C., Diaz, D., Lora-Michiels, A.: Transforming attribute and clone-enabled feature models into constraint programs over finite domains. In: Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE). Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendonca, M., Branco, M., Cowan, D.: Splot: software product lines online tools. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN Conference Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, pp. 761–762. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rossi, F., van Beek, P., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Constraint Programming. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schneeweiss, D.: Grafische, interaktive Produktkonfiguration mit Finite-Domain-Constraints. Diploma thesis, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, September 2011. http://www.denny-schneeweiss.de/academic/publications/Schneeweiss2011--DiplomaThesis.pdf
  21. 21.
    Soininen, T., Niemelä, I.: Developing a declarative rule language for applications in product configuration. In: Gupta, G. (ed.) PADL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1551, p. 305. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soininen, T., Niemelä, I., Tiihonen, J., Sulonen, R.: Representing configuration knowledge with weight constraint rules. In: AAAI Symposium on Answer Set Programming, pp. 195–201. AAAI Press, March 2001Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Subbarayan, S.: Integrating CSP decomposition techniques and BDDs for compiling configuration problems. In: Barták, R., Milano, M. (eds.) CPAIOR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3524, pp. 351–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Subbarayan, S., Jensen, R.M., Hadzic, T., Andersen, H.R., Hulgaard, H., Møller, J.: Comparing two implementations of a complete and backtrack-free interactive configurator. In: Workshop on CSP Techniques with Immediate Application (CSPIA), pp. 97–111 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trinidad, P., Benavides, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A., Segura, S., Jimenez, A.: Fama framework. In :12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2008), Limerick, Ireland, pp. 359–359. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tseng, M.M., Jiao, J.: Mass customization. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Industrial Engineering, Technology and Operation Management, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xtext. Language development framework. http://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/. Accessed 3 Feb 2012
  28. 28.
    Yan, H., Zhang, W., Zhao, H., Mei, H.: An optimization strategy to feature models’ verification by eliminating verification-irrelevant features and constraints. In: Edwards, S.H., Kulczycki, G. (eds.) ICSR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5791, pp. 65–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Berlin Institute of TechnologyBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Brandenburg University of TechnologyCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations