Tool Modeling with Fujaba

Geiger, Leif; Zündorf, Albert

doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2005.12.017

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1-2002 (2003), Abeti et al (2003), Altheide et al (2003), Aversano et al (2003), Baentsch et al (1995), Baldamus et al (2004), Ballarini et al (2003), Bandinelli et al (1994), Bao and Horowitz (1996), Belkhatir and Estublier (1986), Bernas (1995), Bischofberger et al (1995), , Bosua and Brinkkemper (1995), Burmester et al (2005), Cao et al (2004), Chen and Chou (1999), Chou and Chen (1999), Chou (2005b), Chou (2005a), Chou et al (2005), Chung et al (1998), Corradini et al (2003), Costagliola et al (2006), Cybulski and Reed (1992), D'Ambrogio and Iazeolla (2005), Desikan and Bulusu (2003), Earl (1989), Eikemeier et al (2003), El-khoury et al (2005), Freude and Kö nigs (2003), Fromme and Walker (1993), Garlan (1986), Geiger and Zü ndorf (2006), Gerber and Raymond (2003), Gisi and Kaiser (1991), Grundy et al (1998c), Grundy et al (2000), Hansen (2003), Harrison et al (1992), Huck et al (2005), Iyengar (1998), Jiang and Systä (2003), , , …”

Section: Descriptive Researchmentioning

confidence: 94%

A new research agenda for tool integration

Wicks

Dewar

2007

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Descriptive Researchmentioning

confidence: 94%

A new research agenda for tool integration

Wicks

Dewar

2007

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The concrete mapping functions κ and π (for rendering and parsing) can for this purpose be considered a special kind of transformation. Some tools such as Fujaba [9] force the user to explicitly implement a concrete mapping. Abstract syntax concepts can be instantiated using Object Diagrams.…”

Section: Re-constructing Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for evolution of modelling languages

Meyers

Vangheluwe

2011

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn model-driven engineering, evolution is inevitable over the course of the complete life cycle of complex software-intensive systems and more importantly of entire product families. Not only instance models, but also entire modelling languages are subject to change. This is in particular true for domain-specific languages, whose language constructs are tightly coupled to an application domain. The most popular approach to evolution in the modelling domain is a manual process, with tedious and error-prone migration of artefacts such as instance models as a result. This paper provides a taxonomy for evolution of modelling languages and discusses the different evolution scenarios for various kinds of modelling artefacts, such as instance models, metamodels, and transformation models. Subsequently, the consequences of evolution and the required remedial actions are decomposed into primitive scenarios such that all possible evolutions can be covered exhaustively. These primitives are then used in a high-level framework for the evolution of modelling languages. We suggest that our structured approach enables the design of (semi-)automatic modelling language evolution solutions.

show abstract

“…However, it is in many cases non-trivial to determine when a layered approach, possibly combined with NACs, is sufficient. Fujaba [12] eases this work by providing direct support for transactional rules.…”

Section: Remove Unstructured Cycles In Aggmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other tools with more control flow and transaction support like in Fujaba [12] and PROGRES [33], it may be simpler than with AGG to simulate a collection rule by collection free rules. This also holds for graph transformation with recursion [16,38].…”

Section: Simulating a Collection Rule By Collection Free Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A collection operator for graph transformation

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Algebraic graph transformation has a wellestablished theory and associated tools that can be used to perform model transformations. However, the lack of a construct to match and transform collections of similar subgraphs makes graph transformation complex or even impractical to use in a number of transformation cases. This is addressed in this paper, by defining a collection operator which is powerful, yet simple to model and understand. A rule can contain multiple collection operators, each with lower and upper bound cardinalities, and the collection operators can be nested. An associated matching process dynamically builds a collection free rule that enables us to reuse the existing graph transformation apparatus. We present model transformation examples from different modeling domains to illustrate the benefit of the approach. Keywords Graph transformation • Model transformation • Matching 1 Introduction Graph transformations have been proposed by several authors as a means to perform model transformations [5,9]. The graphical way to define model transformations, the available tool support [12,33,37], and the well-established theory Communicated by Jeff Gray and

show abstract

Tool Modeling with Fujaba

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

A new research agenda for tool integration

A new research agenda for tool integration

A framework for evolution of modelling languages

A collection operator for graph transformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About