Towards Consistent Specifications of Product Families

Harhurin, Alexander; Hartmann, Jochen

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68237-0_27

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous work [17] addressed consistency in composition in multi-view modeling in SPL following a FOSD [5] approach for models closer to the product implementation. Also, Harhurin and Hartmann [12] provided denotational semantics and a notation called Service Diagram to describe system functionality and variability. Both works focus only on depedencies between atomic features.…”

Section: Discussion and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting Consistency Checking between Features and Software Product Line Use Scenarios

Alférez

Lopez-Herrejon

Moreira

et al. 2011

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key aspect for effective variability modeling of Software Product Lines (SPL) is to harmonize the need to achieve separation of concerns with the need to satisfy consistency of requirements and constraints. Techniques for variability modeling such as feature models used together with use scenarios help to achieve separation of stakeholders' concerns but ensuring their joint consistency is largely unsupported. Therefore, inconsistent assumptions about system's expected use scenarios and the way in which they vary according to the presence or absence of features reduce the models usefulness and possibly renders invalid SPL systems. In this paper we propose an approach to check consistency the verification of semantic relationships among the models between features and use scenarios that realize them. The novelty of this approach is that it is specially tailored for the SPL domain and considers complex composition situations where the customization of use scenarios for specific products depends on the presence or absence of sets of features. We illustrate our approach and supporting tools using variant constructs that specify how the inclusion of sets of variable features (that refer to uncommon requirements between products of a SPL) adapt use scenarios related to other features.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting Consistency Checking between Features and Software Product Line Use Scenarios

Alférez

Lopez-Herrejon

Moreira

et al. 2011

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we found some approaches that actually use product-based analyses for specific implementation mechanisms and do not discuss how to deal with many products; these approaches apply type checking [Apel et al 2008a;Buchmann and Schwägerl 2012;, static analyses [Klaeren et al 2001;Scholz et al 2011], model checking [Ubayashi and Tamai 2002;Kishi and Noda 2006;Fantechi and Gnesi 2008;Apel et al 2010b;Bessling and Huhn 2014], and theorem proving [Harhurin and Hartmann 2008] to software product lines. The unoptimized product-based analysis strategy has been used with domainindependent specifications [Apel et al 2008a;Buchmann and Schwägerl 2012;, family-wide specifications [Ubayashi and Tamai 2002;Kishi and Noda 2006;Fantechi and Gnesi 2008;, and feature-based specifications [Klaeren et al 2001;Harhurin and Hartmann 2008;Apel et al 2010b;Scholz et al 2011;Bessling and Huhn 2014]. These approaches considered composition-based implementation [Klaeren et al 2001;Ubayashi and Tamai 2002;Apel et al 2008a;Scholz et al 2011], composition-based design [Harhurin and Hartmann 2008;Apel et al 2010b;Bessling and Huhn 2014], and annotation-based design [Kishi and Noda 2006;Fantechi and Gnesi 2008;Buchmann and Schwägerl 2012] as domain artifacts.…”

Section: Unoptimized Product-based Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The unoptimized product-based analysis strategy has been used with domainindependent specifications [Apel et al 2008a;Buchmann and Schwägerl 2012;, family-wide specifications [Ubayashi and Tamai 2002;Kishi and Noda 2006;Fantechi and Gnesi 2008;, and feature-based specifications [Klaeren et al 2001;Harhurin and Hartmann 2008;Apel et al 2010b;Scholz et al 2011;Bessling and Huhn 2014]. These approaches considered composition-based implementation [Klaeren et al 2001;Ubayashi and Tamai 2002;Apel et al 2008a;Scholz et al 2011], composition-based design [Harhurin and Hartmann 2008;Apel et al 2010b;Bessling and Huhn 2014], and annotation-based design [Kishi and Noda 2006;Fantechi and Gnesi 2008;Buchmann and Schwägerl 2012] as domain artifacts.…”

Section: Unoptimized Product-based Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Classification and Survey of Analysis Strategies for Software Product Lines

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software-product-line engineering has gained considerable momentum in the recent years, both in industry and in academia. A software product line is a family of software products that share a common set of features. Software product lines challenge traditional analysis techniques, such as type checking, model checking, and theorem proving, in their quest of ensuring correctness and reliability of software. Simply creating and analyzing all products of a product line is usually not feasible, due to the potentially exponential number of valid feature combinations. Recently, researchers began to develop analysis techniques that take the distinguishing properties of software product lines into account, for example, by checking feature-related code in isolation or by exploiting variability information during analysis. The emerging field of product-line analyses is both broad and diverse, so it is difficult for researchers and practitioners to understand their similarities and differences. We propose a classification of product-line analyses to enable systematic research and application. Based on our insights with classifying and comparing a corpus of 123 research articles, we develop a research agenda to guide future research on product-line analyses.

show abstract

“…Harhurin and Hartmann [101] employ a serviceoriented approach [160] to specifying software product lines and reasoning about feature interactions, focusing on consistency of the specification, formalized in terms of Broy's foundational framework [40].…”

Section: Solution Space Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Software diversity: state of the art and perspectives

Schaefer

Rabiser²,

Clarke

et al. 2012

Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Diversity is prevalent in modern software systems to facilitate adapting the software to customer requirements or the execution environment. Diversity has an impact on all phases of the software development process. Appropriate means and organizational structures are required to deal with the additional complexity introduced by software variability. This introductory article to the special section "Software Diversity -Modeling, Analysis and Evolution" provides an overview of the current state of the art in diverse systems development and discusses challenges and potential solutions. The article covers requirements analysis, design, implementation, verification and validation, maintenance and evolution as well as organizational aspects. It also provides an overview of the articles which are part of this special section and address particular issues of diverse systems development.

show abstract

Towards Consistent Specifications of Product Families

Cited by 12 publications

References 11 publications

Supporting Consistency Checking between Features and Software Product Line Use Scenarios

Supporting Consistency Checking between Features and Software Product Line Use Scenarios

A Classification and Survey of Analysis Strategies for Software Product Lines

Software diversity: state of the art and perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About