A posteriori operation detection in evolving software models

Langer, Philip; Wimmer, Manuel; Brosch, Petra; Herrmannsdörfer, Markus; Seidl, Martina; Wieland, Konrad; Kappel, Gerti

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.09.037

Cited by 39 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among them, we focus on seven complex changes: move property, pull property, push property, extract super class, atten hierarchy, extract class, and inline class. A study of the evolution of GMF 3 metamodel showed that these seven changes are the most used ones and constitute 72% of the applied complex changes [8,14]. In our case study they constitute 100% of the applied complex changes in the evolutions.…”

Section: Metamodel Changes During Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Metamodel and Constraints Co-evolution: A Semi Automatic Maintenance of OCL Constraints

Khelladi

Hebig

Bendraou

et al. 2016

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Metamodel Changes During Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Metamodel and Constraints Co-evolution: A Semi Automatic Maintenance of OCL Constraints

Khelladi

Hebig

Bendraou

et al. 2016

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Instances of Ecore-based metamodels can only be edited in a limited number of ways, since the kinds of elements of which such an instances consist are Langer et al [102] have presented an approach based on graph transformation, which offers an a posteriori analysis of changes to EMF-based metamodels and their instances, independent of the way in which the models were edited. The approach is able to extract complex change operations from atomic difference descriptions, which have been determined with EMF…”

Section: Editability Of Ecore-based Metamodels and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Bürger¹

2013

Proceedings of the 18th International Doctoral Symposium on Components and Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern software development faces growing size and complexity of the systems that are being developed. To cope with this complexity, several languages and modelling formalisms are used during the development of a system in order to describe it from various view points and at multiple levels of abstraction. These languages and modeling formalisms are specific to the domain of the system under development, to the paradigms that are followed, and to the developer tools being used. For example, in a component-based process, the software architecture may be defined using a component metamodel, while class diagrams are used for the object-oriented design of the system; performance and reliability models express the extra-functional properties; program code in a general-purpose programming language defines the execution semantics, and is used for the implementation of the system. Although all these artefacts follow different concepts and formalisms, they express the same system from various view points and can thus be understood as views on the system under development. The entirety of these views can be identified as a complete definition of the system. Although the usage of multiple formalisms offers the advantage that different developers can describe the system from different view points, and in languages and models that are specially designed for this purpose, it introduces the problem of fragmentation of information across heterogeneous artefacts in different formats, concepts, and languages. With increasing complexity of the systems, this makes navigation through the system description difficult for developers and other roles in the development process. Furthermore, since the concepts and formalisms are managed independently, they can share semantic overlaps, so that a piece of information about the system under i Abstract development can be expressed in several ways and contexts. For example, while a component model may be used to express the prescriptive software architecture of a system, the implementation in a general-purpose programming language also determines an implicit architecture of the system, which leads to redundancies in the system descriptions. The independent evolution of these artefacts can lead to inconsistencies, which cannot be identified automatically if the semantic correspondances between the artefacts are not modelled explicitly.View-based software development processes offer two fundamental principles of adressing this problem: While synthetic approaches integrate the information of heterogeneous models to form a complete system description, projective approaches introduce a common formalism in which all view points of the system can be represented, and generate the views from this central model. While the pure synthetic approach suffers from a quadratic increase of interdependencies between the view types, which become very numerous with a growing number of formalisms that have to be supported, the projective approach faces the problem of providing a common formalism that is ab...

show abstract

“…The test data set of our case study was initially contributed by Herrmanndörfer et al [14], and later extended by Langer et al [26] in order to evaluate some of the contributions of his dissertation (s. Section VIII). They studied the evolution of the Eclipse Graphical Modeling Framework (GMF) [12], an open source project that provides a set of generative components and runtime infrastructures for developing graphical editors based on EMF and GEF.…”

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Consistency-preserving edit scripts in model versioning

Kehrer

Kelter

Taentzer

2013

2013 28th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In model-based software development, models are iteratively evolved. To optimally support model evolution, developers need adequate tools for model versioning tasks, including comparison, patching, and merging of models. A significant disadvantage of tools currently available is that they display, and operate with, low-level model changes which refer to internal model representations and which can lead to intermediate inconsistent states. Higher-level consistency-preserving edit operations including refactorings are better suited to explain changes or to resolve conflicts. This paper presents an automatic procedure which transforms a low-level difference into an executable edit script which uses consistency-preserving edit operations only. Edit scripts support consistent model patching and merging on a higher abstraction level. Our approach to edit script generation has been evaluated in a larger real-world case study.

show abstract

A posteriori operation detection in evolving software models

Cited by 39 publications

References 39 publications

Metamodel and Constraints Co-evolution: A Semi Automatic Maintenance of OCL Constraints

Metamodel and Constraints Co-evolution: A Semi Automatic Maintenance of OCL Constraints

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Consistency-preserving edit scripts in model versioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About