A high-level object-oriented specification language for configuration management and tool integration

  • O. Neumann
  • S. Sachweh
  • W. Schäfer
Process Model Evolution Session
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1149)


The main points of our position and approach are that
  1. (1)

    the high-level object-oriented specification of a software process based on well-known design methods like OMT is highly intuitive and easily acceptable,

  2. (2)

    current general object-oriented design methods fail in providing enough rigour and dedication for process modelling and in particular configuration management which is considered a major part of process modelling,

  3. (3)

    exploiting inheritance properly (i.e. in a well-defined way) especially when specifying dynamic behaviour makes the definition and adjustment of project or company specific process as safe and as easy as possible,

  4. (4)

    the use of generated class interfaces and of an envelope library for tool integration ensures as much as possible independence from a particular implementation and thus guarantees an implementation highly portable.



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [ACM94]
    V. Ambriola, G. A. Cignoni, and C. Montagnero. The Oikos Services for Object Management in the Software Process. In B. C. Warboys, editor, Proceedings of the 3 rd European Workshop, EWSPT '94, pages 2–14. Springer, February 1994. LNCS 772.Google Scholar
  2. [BBFL94]
    S. Bandinelli, M. Braga, A. Fuggetta, and L. Lavazza. The Architecture of the SPADE-1 Process-Centered SEE. In B. C. Warboys [War94], pages 15–30. LNCS 772.Google Scholar
  3. [BMEN92]
    N. Belkhatir, W. L. Melo, J. Estublier, and A. M. Nacer. Supporting software maintenance evolution process in the Adele system. In C. M. Pancake and D. S. Reeves, editor, Proceedings of the 30 th Annual ACM Southeast Conference, Raleigh, NC, pages 165–172, April 8–10 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [CJM+92]
    R. Conradi, M. L. Jaccheri, C. Mazzi, M. N. Nguyen, and A. Aarsten. Design, Use an Implementation of SPELL, a language for Software Process Modeling and Evolution. In J. C. Derniame, editor, Proceedings of the 2 nd European Workshop on Software Process Technology, Trondheim, Norway, September 1992, pages 167–177. Springer, 1992. LNCS 635.Google Scholar
  5. [GKY91]
    B. Gulla, E.-A. Karlsson, and D. Yeh. Change-oriented version descriptions in EPOS. Software Engineering Journal, 6(6):378–386, November 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [Gru91]
    V. Gruhn. The Software Process Management Environment MELMAC. In Proceedings of the 1 st European Workshop on Software Process Modeling, Milan, Italy, pages 191–201. A.I.C.A. Press, May 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [JS94]
    G. Junkermann and W. Schäfer. A Design Methodology for Process-Programming. In B. C. Warboys [War94], pages 69–73. LNCS 772.Google Scholar
  8. [Jun95]
    G. Junkermann. A Dedicated Process Design Languague based on EER-models, Statecharts and Tables. In Proceedings of the 7 th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Rockville, Maryland, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [KFP88]
    G. E. Kaiser, P. H. Feiler, and St. S. Popovich. Intelligent Assistance for Software Development and Maintenance. IEEE Software, pages 40–49, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [KPBS93]
    G. E. Kaiser, S. Popovich, and I. Z. Ben-Shaul. A Bi-Level Language for Software Process Modeling. In Proceedings of the 15 th International Conference on Software Engineering, Baltimore, Maryland, pages 132–143. IEEE Press, May 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [Leb94]
    D. B. Leblang. The CMChallenge: Configuration Management that Works. In W.F. Tichy, editor, Configuration Management, chapter 1, pages 1–37. John Wiley, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [Neu96]
    O. Neumann. From Process Models to Environments. submitted to ICSP4, April 1996.Google Scholar
  13. [RBP+91]
    J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [Sch89]
    A. Schürr. Introduction to PROGRESS, an Attribute Graph Grammar Based Specification Language. In M. Nagl, editor, Proceedings of the Workshop on Graphtheoretic Concepts in Computer Science, WG '89, pages 151–165, Berlin, 1989. Springer-Verlag. LNCS 411.Google Scholar
  15. [SS95]
    S. Sachweh and W. Schäfer. Version Management for tightly integrated Software Engineering Environments. In M. S. Verrall, editor, Proceedings of the 7 th International Conference on Software Engineering Environments, Leiden, The Netherlands, pages 21–31. IEEE Computer Society Press, April 5–7 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [Tic94]
    W.F. Tichy, editor. Configuration Management. John Wiley, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. [TSY+88]
    R. N. Taylor, R. W. Selby, M. Young, F. C. Belz, L. A. Clarce, J. C. Wileden and R. N. Taylor, R. W. Selby, M. Young, F. C. Belz, L. A. Clarce, J. C. Wileden, L. Osterweil, and A. L. Wolf. Foundations of the Arcadia Environment Architecture. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 13(5): 1–13, 1988. Proc. of the 4th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Development Environments, Irvine, Cal.Google Scholar
  18. [VK95]
    G. Valetto and G. Kaiser. Enveloping “Persistent” Tools for a Process-Centered Environment. In W. Schäfer, editor, Proceedings of the 4 th European Workshop, EWSPT '95, pages 200–204. Springer Verlag, April 1995. Nordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, April '95.Google Scholar
  19. [War94]
    B. C. Warboys, editor. Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Software Process Technology EWSPT 94, Villard de Lans (Grenoble), February 1994. ESPRIT-BRA Promoter, Springer. LNCS 772.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Neumann
    • 1
  • S. Sachweh
    • 1
  • W. Schäfer
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich Mathematik-Informatik, AG SoftwaretechnikUniversität-GH PaderbornPaderborn

Personalised recommendations