Closing the Gap between Modelling and Java

Heidenreich, Florian; Johannes, Jendrik; Seifert, Mirko; Wende, Christian

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12107-4_25

Cited by 45 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, we exclude studies on model refactoring or transformation if they do not include any reverse engineering phase in the proposed refactoring or transformation process. We also exclude studies on parsers just for program compilation even though these parsers such as javac and the Eclipse Java Development Tools (JDT) in Java have internal metamodels (Heidenreich et al 2010).…”

Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…None of these implementations does provide an integration with standard metamodelling tools (Heidenreich et al 2010); i.e., these are not originally intended for program reverse engineering objectives. c).…”

Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, we replace work summary papers such as a summary of a Ph.D. work with their complete version papers. We perform the full analysis and remove 6 more papers from the list, leaving 44 papers (Ebert 2008;Bergmayr and Wimmer 2013;Naik and Bahulkar 2004;Chirila and Jebelean 2010;Molina 2010, 2014;Martinez et al 2014: Owens andAnderson 2013;Soden and Eichler 2007;Antoniol et al 2003;Vidács 2009;Strein et al 2006;Lethbridge et al 2004;Lin and Holt 2004;Knodel and Calderon-Meza 2004;Brühlmann et al 2008;Tripathi et al 2009;Lanza 2003;Pinzger et al 2005;Mens and Lanza 2002;Tichelaar et al 2000;Antoniol et al 2005;Gȯmez et al 2009;Reus et al 2006;Reus et al 2004;Cho 2005;Heidenreich et al 2010;Kollmann and Gogolla 2001;Favre 2008;Pėrez-Castillo et al 2013;Santibȧnėz et al 2015;Durelli et al 2014;Izquierdo and Molina 2010;Martinez et al 2014;Arcelli et al 2010;Guėhėneuc and Albin-Amiot 2001;Harmer and Wilkie 2002;Wu 2010;Gȯmez and Ducasse 2012;Alikacem and Sahraoui 2009;Ossher et al 2009;…”

Section: Paper Selection Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

ProMeTA: a taxonomy for program metamodels in program reverse engineering

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To support program comprehension, maintenance, and evolution, metamodels are frequently used during program reverse engineering activities to describe and analyze constituents of a program and their relations. Reverse engineering tools often define their own metamodels according to the intended purposes and features. Although each metamodel has its own advantages, its limitations may be addressed by other metamodels. Existing works have evaluated and compared metamodels and tools, but none have considered all the possible characteristics and limitations to provide a comprehensive guideline for classifying, comparing, reusing, and extending program metamodels. To aid practitioners and researchers in classifying, comparing, reusing, and extending program metamodels and their corresponding reverse engineering tools according to the intended goals, we establish a conceptual framework with definitions of program metamodels and related concepts. We confirmed that any reverse engineering activity can be clearly described as a pattern based on the framework from the viewpoint of program metamodels. Then the framework is used (2018) 23:2323-2358 to provide a comprehensive taxonomy, named Program Metamodel TAxonomy (ProMeTA), which incorporates newly identified characteristics into those stated in previous works, which were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR) on program metamodels, while keeping the orthogonality of the entire taxonomy. Additionally, we validate the taxonomy in terms of its orthogonality and usefulness through the classification of popular metamodels.Empir Software Eng

show abstract

Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Paper Selection Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

ProMeTA: a taxonomy for program metamodels in program reverse engineering

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach promotes reusability because the same transformation can be applied to every meta-model to which we can bind the concept. The figure shows part of the binding of the concept to a simplification of the UML2 meta-model [37] and to the Java meta-model (a slight modification of the one proposed by the JaMoPP project [19] An additional advantage of this approach is that concepts are simpler, with less accidental details than the meta-models they get bound to, resulting in simpler transformations. This is so because concepts are specifically designed for a transformation while meta-models gather the abstractions of a domain, and hence may become large.…”

Section: Motivation Overview and Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards the flexible reuse of model transformations: A formal approach based on graph transformation

Lara

Guerra

2014

Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in:Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming 83. 5-6 (2014) AbstractModel transformations are the heart and soul of Model Driven Engineering (MDE). However, in order to increase the adoption of MDE by industry, techniques for developing model transformations in the large and raising the quality and productivity in their construction, like reusability, are still needed.In previous works, we developed a reutilization approach for graph transformations based on the definition of concepts, which gather the structural requirements needed by meta-models to qualify for the transformations. Reusable transformations are typed by concepts, becoming transformation templates. Transformation templates are instantiated by binding the concept to a concrete meta-model, inducing a retyping of the transformation for the given meta-model. This paper extends the approach allowing heterogeneities between the concept and the metamodel, thus increasing the reuse opportunities of transformation templates. Heterogeneities are resolved by using algebraic adapters which induce both a retyping and an adaptation of the transformation. As an alternative, the adapters can also be employed to induce an adaptation of the meta-model, and in this work we show the conditions for equivalence of both approaches to transformation reuse.

show abstract

“…First, the parser of our language and the code generation templates are implemented with the EMFText 1 language workbench. For this purpose, we have defined the AspectJ grammar by using JaMoPP 2 [HJSW10] as the foundation and extended it with the grammar for instance pointcuts which was presented interspersed with the previous section.…”

Section: Compilation Of Instance Pointcutsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-instrusive instance level software composition

Hatun¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Closing the Gap between Modelling and Java

Cited by 45 publications

References 9 publications

ProMeTA: a taxonomy for program metamodels in program reverse engineering

ProMeTA: a taxonomy for program metamodels in program reverse engineering

Towards the flexible reuse of model transformations: A formal approach based on graph transformation

Non-instrusive instance level software composition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About