Automating the Extraction of Model-Based Software Product Lines from Model Variants (T)

Abstract

We address the problem of automating 1) the analysis of existing similar model variants and 2) migrating them into a software product line. Our approach, named MoVa2PL, considers the identification of variability and commonality in model variants, as well as the extraction of a CVL-compliant Model-based Software Product Line (MSPL) from the features identified on these variants. MoVa2PL builds on a generic representation of models making it suitable to any MOF-based models. We apply our approach on variants of the open source ArgoUML UML modeling tool as well as on variants of an Inflight Entertainment System. Evaluation with these large and complex case studies contributed to show how our feature identification with structural constraints discovery and the MSPL generation process are implemented to make the approach valid (i.e., the extracted software product line can be used to regenerate all variants considered) and sound (i.e., derived variants which did not exist are at least structurally valid).

Reverse engineering language product lines from existing DSL variants

“…Besides, there are several approaches that address this issue for the case in which the product variants have been built using the clone-and-own approach [25,26,27]. Although the applicability of such idea to the specific case of language product lines is quite recent, there are some related work that we discuss in this section.…”

“…This becomes specially challenging when final users need to combine some specifications to define hybrid formalisms. While several approaches have been proposed to reverse engineering software product lines from existing product variants [25,26,27], in this article we propose techniques to reverse engineering language product lines from existing DSL variants. In that sense, our work can be compared with approaches such as the ones presented by Kühn et al [15] and by Vacchi et al [28,29].…”

Feature Location Benchmark for Software Families Using Eclipse Community Releases

“…However, depending on the nature of the variants, this can concern code fragments in the case of source code [2,11,23,34], model fragments in the context of models [12,20] or software components in software architectures [1,14]. Therefore, existing techniques are composed of the following two phases: 1) Abstraction, where the different product variants are abstracted and represented as implementation elements; 2) Location, where algorithms analyse and compare the different product variants to create groups of implementation elements.…”

“…Indeed, each approach uses a specific formalism to represent product variants. For example AST nodes for source code [11], Atomic-Model-Element to represent model variants [20] or plugins in software architectures [1]. In addition, the granularity of the sought implementation elements may vary from coarse to fine [16].…”

Bottom-Up Technologies for Reuse: Automated Extractive Adoption of Software Product Lines

“…15 different adapters are currently supported [12] covering a wide range of artefact types. Considering that we selected a set of vending machine variants for analysis [7], Figure 3 shows that support for EMF models is provided [8] and this adapter is preselected among the available adapters. At this point, the SPL adopters can use the techniques, algorithms and visualisations selected by default, or they can change or configure them in the BUT4Reuse preferences.…”