Model-Driven Engineering of Machine Executable Code

Eichberg, Michael; Monperrus, Martin; Kloppenburg, Sven; Mezini, Mira

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13595-8_10

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This classification has led some authors to characterize the modeling maturity level of organizations based on the role of modeling in their software development process [4]. While code-centric development approaches require -at most -an informal use of modeling techniques and languages (such as sketches), both MBD and MDD approaches require a more formal use of models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MDD vs. traditional software development: A practitioner’s subjective perspective

Martínez

Luján-Mora

Meliá

2013

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Context: Today practitioners have a myriad of methods from which to choose for the development of software applications. However they lack empirical data that characterize these methods in terms of usefulness, ease of use or compatibility, all of them relevant variables to assess the developer's intention to use them. OBJECTIVE: To compare three methods, each following a different paradigm (Model-Driven, Model-Based and the traditional, code-centric, respectively) with respect to its intention to use by junior software developers while developing the business layer of a Web 2.0 application. METHOD: We have conducted an experiment with 26 graduate students of the University of Alicante. The application developed was a Social Network, which was organized in three different modules. Subjects were asked to use a different method for each one of the three modules, and then answer a questionnaire that gathered their perceptions during its use. RESULTS: The results show that the method that followed the Model-Driven development paradigm is regarded as the most useful, although it is also regarded as the more difficult to use. They also show that junior software developers feel comfortable with the use of models, and are likely to use them if accompanied by a model-driven development environment. CONCLUSIONS: Model-driven development methods seem to show a great potential for adoption. However, further experimentation is needed to be able to generalize the results to a different population, different methods, languages and tools, different domains or different application sizes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MDD vs. traditional software development: A practitioner’s subjective perspective

Martínez

Luján-Mora

Meliá

2013

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding other meta-models for bytecode, besides the work by Reynolds discussed above, we are aware of only one further approach by Eichberg et al (Eichberg et al 2010). They provide a meta-model for Java bytecode as an XML Schema.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Java Bytecode Verification with OCL Why, How and Whenc.

Bockisch¹,

Taentzer²,

Nassar³

et al. 2020

JOT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Program transformations are frequently developed, e.g., to realize programming language extensions or dynamic program analyses such as profiling. They are typically implemented by manipulating bytecode as the availability of source code is not guaranteed. There are standard libraries such as ASM that are typically used for implementing Java bytecode manipulations. To check their correctness, they are usually tested by applying them to different programs, running the manipulated programs and observing their behaviors. As part of the second step, the Java virtual machine verifies the bytecode, which can uncover errors in the bytecode introduced by the manipulation. That approach uses different technologies that are not well linked making the process of developing and testing bytecode manipulations difficult. In this paper, we intend to perform bytecode manipulation by using concepts and techniques of model-driven engineering. We are convinced that the declarative nature of model transformation rules allows the debugging and analyzing of bytecode manipulations in more details than classically done. Following this path, a meta-model for bytecode is needed including OCL constraints for bytecode verification. We analyze the semantic rules of the bytecode verifier according to their complexity factor, present a meta-model for Java bytecode, show how the semantic rules can be expressed as OCL constraints on top of this meta-model, and show that basing bytecode manipulation on model transformation can provide more immediate guidance and feedback to the developer.

show abstract

“…There are not many attempts in the field of metamodeling of bytecode. Eichberg et al [12] provide an XML Schema-based metamodel of bytecode supporting multiple instruction set architectures, such as Java bytecode. They report the benefits of using an explicit metamodel: ease of changing and extending a metamodel in case of new requirements, and facilitating the development of generic analyses with the help of a well-defined data structure.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Java Bytecode Metamodel for Composable Program Analyses

Yildiz

Bockisch

Rensink

et al. 2018

Software Technologies: Applications and Foundations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Program analyses are an important tool to check if a system fulfills its specification. A typical implementation strategy for program analyses is to use an imperative, general-purpose language like Java; and access the program to be analyzed through libraries for manipulating intermediate code, such as ASM for Java bytecode. We show that this hampers composability, interoperability and reuse of analysis implementations.We propose a complete Ecore-metamodel for Java bytecode as a common basis for program analysis implementations, as well as an Eclipse plug-in to create bytecode metamodel instances from Java bytecode and vice versa. Code analyses can be defined as model transformations in a declarative, domain-specific language. As a consequence, the implementations of program analyses become more composable and more modular in general. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach with a case study.

show abstract

Model-Driven Engineering of Machine Executable Code

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

MDD vs. traditional software development: A practitioner’s subjective perspective

MDD vs. traditional software development: A practitioner’s subjective perspective

Java Bytecode Verification with OCL Why, How and Whenc.

A Java Bytecode Metamodel for Composable Program Analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About