Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tool integration at the meta-model level: the Fujaba approach

  • Special section on tool-integration applications and frameworks
  • Published:
International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today’s development processes employ a variety of notations and tools, e.g., the Unified Modeling Language UML, the Standard Description Language SDL, requirements databases, design tools, code generators, model checkers, etc. For better process support, the employed tools may be organized within a tool suite or integration platform, e.g., Rational Rose or Eclipse. While these tool-integration platforms usually provide GUI adaption mechanisms and functional adaption via application programming interfaces, they frequently do not provide appropriate means for data integration at the meta-model level. Thus, overlapping and redundant data from different “integrated” tools may easily become inconsistent and unusable. We propose two design patterns that provide a flexible basis for the integration of different tool data at the meta-model level. To achieve consistency between meta-models, we describe rule-based mechanisms providing generic solutions for managing overlapping and redundant data. The proposed mechanisms are widely used within the Fujaba Tool Suite. We report about our implementation and application experiences .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arnold K, O’Sullivan B, Scheifler RW, Waldo J, Wollrath A, (1999) The Jini specification. The Jini Technology Series, June 1999

  2. Balzer R (1991) Tolerating inconsistency. In: Proc. 13th international conference on software engineering, Austin, TX. IEEE Press, New York, pp 158–165

  3. Bottoni P, Koch M, Parisi-Pressice F, Taenzer G (2000) Consistency checking and visualization of OCL constraints. In: UML 2000. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1936. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  4. Egyed A (2000) Automatically validating model consistency during refinement. Technical report, Center for Software Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, October 2000

  5. Ehrig H, Tsiolakis A (2000) Consistency analysis of UML class and sequence diagrams using attributed graph grammars. In: Ehrig H, Taentzer G (eds) Proc. ETAPS 2000 workshop on graph transformation systems, Berlin, Germany

  6. Engels G, Küster J, Groenewegen L, Heckel R (2001) A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models. In: Gruhn V (ed) Proc. 8th European software engineering conference (ESEC), September 2001, pp 186–195

  7. Finkelstein A (2000) A foolish consistency: technical challenges in consistency management. In: Ibrahim MT, Küng J, Revell N (eds) Proc. 11th international conference on database and expert systems applications (DEXA’00), London, UK, September 2000. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1873. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1–5

  8. Fischer T, Niere J, Torunski L, Zündorf A (1998) Story diagrams: a new graph rewrite language based on the unified modeling language. In: Engels G, Rozenberg G (eds) Proc. 6th international workshop on theory and application of graph transformation (TAGT), Paderborn, Germany, November 1998. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1764. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 296–309

  9. Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns: elements of reusable object oriented software. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ghezzi C, Nuseibeh B (1998) Special issue on managing inconsistency in software development (1). IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(11):906–1001

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ghezzi C, Nuseibeh B (1999) Special issue on managing inconsistency in software development (2). IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(11):782–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Habel A, Heckel R, Taenzer G (1996) Graph grammars with negative application conditions. Fund Inf 26(3,4):287–313

  13. Hirsch M, Giese H (2003) Towards the incremental model checking of complex realtime UML models. In: Proc. Fujaba Days 2003, Kassel, Germany, October

  14. Jahnke J (1999) Management of uncertainty and inconsistency in database reengineering processes. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany, September

  15. Jahnke J, Schäfer W, Wadsack J, Zündorf A (2002) Supporting iterations in exploratory database reengineering processes. J Sci Comput Programm 45(2-3):99–136

  16. Java Community Process (2002) JSR 040: Java Metadata Interface (JMI) Specification, June 2002

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jin D, Cordy J, Dean T (2002) Where’s the schema? A taxonomy of patterns for software exchange. In: Proc. 10th international workshop on program comprehension (IWPC), Paris, June 2002

  18. Kazman R, Woods S, Carrière SJ (1998) Requirements for integrating software architecture and reengineering models: CORUM II. In: Proc. working conference on reverse engineering (WCRE’98), Honolulu, HI, October, pp 154–163

  19. Köhler H, Nickel U, Niere J, Zündorf A (2000) Integrating UML diagrams for production control systems. In: Proc. 22nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE), Limerick, Ireland. ACM Press, New York, pp 241–251

  20. Lefering M (1994) Software document integration using graph grammar specifications. In: Proc. 6th international conference on computing and information. J Comput Inf 1(1):1222–1243

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nagl M (ed) (1996) The IPSEN approach. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1170. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  22. Nickel U, Schäfer W, Zündorf A (2003) Integrative specification of distributed production control systems for flexible automated manufacturing. In: Nagl M, Westfechtel B (eds) DFG Workshop: Modelle, Werkzeuge und Infrastrukturen zur Unterstützung von Entwicklungsprozessen, pp 179–195

  23. Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S, Russo A (2000) Leveraging inconsistency in software development. IEEE Comput 33(4):24–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Object International () Together Control Center, the Together case tool. http://www.togethersoft.com [last accessed October 2004]

  25. OMG (2002) Unified Modeling Language Specification version 1.5. Needham, MA

  26. Rational Rose. the Rational Rose case tool. http://www.rational.com [last accessed October 2004]

  27. Rozenberg G (ed) (1999) Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation, vol 1. World Scientific, Singapore

  28. Schürr A (1994) Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In: Proc. 20th international workshop on graph-theoretic concepts in computer science. Herrsching, Germany. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  29. Wagner R (2001) Realisierung eines diagrammübergreifenden Konsistenzmanagement-Systems für UML-Spezifikationen. Master’s thesis, University of Paderborn, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Paderborn, Germany, November

  30. Wagner R, Giese H, Nickel U (2003) A plug-in for flexible and incremental consistency management. In: Proc. international conference on the Unified Modeling Language 2003 (Workshop 7: Consistency problems in UML-based software development), San Francisco, October

    Google Scholar 

  31. Waldo J (1999) The Jini architecture for network-centric computing. Commun ACM 42(7):76–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Woods S, O’Brian L, Lin T, Gallagher K, Quilici A (1998) An architecture for interoperable program understanding tools. In: Proc. 6th international workshop on program comprehension (IWPC), Ischia, Italy, July 1998, pp 54–63

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Engineering Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Paderborn, Germany

    Sven Burmester, Holger Giese, Matthias Tichy, Jörg P. Wadsack, Robert Wagner & Lothar Wendehals

  2. Software Engineering Group, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Siegen, Germany

    Jörg Niere

  3. Software Engineering Research Group, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Kassel, Germany

    Albert Zündorf

Authors
  1. Sven Burmester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Holger Giese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jörg Niere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Tichy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jörg P. Wadsack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robert Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lothar Wendehals
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Albert Zündorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Burmester.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burmester, S., Giese, H., Niere, J. et al. Tool integration at the meta-model level: the Fujaba approach. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer 6, 203–218 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-004-0155-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-004-0155-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation