An Evaluation to Compare Software Product Line Decision Model and Feature Model

Liana B. Lisboa, J. Jenny Li, P. Morreale, D. Heer, D. M. Weiss

Abstract

A key issue in defining a product line is specifying the allowable set of products that will be produced using product line assets, i.e., the scope of the domain. This paper conducts an evaluation to compare two different approaches for defining domain scope, decision model as defined in the Family-oriented Abstraction, Specification, Translation (FAST) process and the feature model as defined in the Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) process. The comparison is based on applying the approaches to two examples, one a textbook example and the other to a product line we maintain on an open source website, in order to identify guidelines for improving the identification and representation of a software family. Our conclusion is that decision model includes both commonality and variability definition at software architecture level and thus it is more suitable for larger product line with a significant number of commonality and variability.

References

  1. Weiss, D. M., 2013. Software Product Line Hall of Fame. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/productlines/plp_hof.html.
  2. W. B. Frakes, R. Prieto-Díaz, and C. J. Fox, 1998. "DARE: Domain Analysis and Reuse Environment," Annals of SW Eng., vol. 5, no. 1998, pp. 125-141.
  3. M. Moon, K. Yeom, and H. S. Chae, 2005. "An Approach to Developing Domain Requirements as a Core Asset Based on Commonality and Variability Analysis in a Product Line," IEEE Transactions on SW Eng., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 551-569.
  4. D. Weiss and C. T. R. Lai, 1999. Software Product-Line Engineering: A Family-Based Software Development Process: Addison-Wesley, 1999, pp. 448.
  5. K. C. Kang, S. G. Cohen, J. A. Hess, W. E. Novak, and A. S. Peterson, 1990. "Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study," Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, SEI, CMU, Pittsburgh.
  6. K. Czarnecki, and et al., 2012. "Cool features and tough decisions: a comparison of variability modeling approaches", VaMoS'12 Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Sys., pp 173-182, NYC, NY, USA.
  7. K. Schmid, and et al., 2011. "A comparison of decision modeling approaches in product lines", VaMoS'11 Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems, pp 119-126, New York, NY, USA.
  8. S. Wartik and R. Prieto-Díaz, 1992. "Criteria for comparing reuse-oriented domain analysis approaches," International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Eng., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 403-43.
  9. X. Ferré and S. Vegas, 1999. "An Evaluation of Domain Analysis Methods," 4th Int. Workshop on Evaluation of Model Methods in Sys. Ana. & Des.
  10. K. Czarnecki and U. Eisenecker, 2000. Generative Programming - Methods, Tools, and Applications: Addison-Wesley, pp832
  11. H. Gomaa and M. E. Shin, 2004. "Tool Support for Software Variability Management and Product Derivation in Software Product Lines," Workshop on Software Variability Management for Product Derivation, SPLC, Boston, USA.
  12. M. Eriksson, J. Börstler, and K. Borg, 2005. "The PLUSS Approach - Domain Modeling with Features, Use Cases and Use Case Realizations," SPLC, Rennes, France, pp. 33-44.
  13. K. C. Kang, M. Kim, J. Lee, and B. Kim, 2005. "FeatureOriented Re-engineering of Legacy Systems into Product Line Assets - a Case Study," SPLC, Rennes, France, pp. 45-56.
  14. D. Benavides, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortes, 2005. "Automated Reasoning on Feature Models," Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Portugal, pp. 491-503.
  15. D. Batory, 2005. "Feature Models, Grammars, and Propositional Formulas," Software Product Lines Conference (SPLC), Rennes, France, pp. 7-20.
  16. Li, J. J., 2013. http://www.trustie.net/projects/project/ show/PolyFlow
  17. L. B. Lisboa, V. C. Garcia, E. S. Almeida, and S. L. Meira, 2007. "ToolDAy - A Process-Centered Domain Analysis Tool," Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES) - Tools Session, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil, pp. 54-60.
  18. Devine, T. R., Goseva, K. Krishnan, S., Lutz, R. R. and Li, J. J., 2012. “An empirical study of pre-release software faults in an industrial product line”, Proc. of IEEE ICST2012, April.
  19. Li, J. J., Slye, H., Trung, D. and Weiss, D. M., 2008. “Decision-model-based Code Generation for PLE”, Proc. of IEEE SPLC2008.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Lisboa L., Li J., Morreale P., Heer D. and Weiss D. (2014). An Evaluation to Compare Software Product Line Decision Model and Feature Model . In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-758-030-7, pages 144-151. DOI: 10.5220/0004887001440151


in Bibtex Style

@conference{enase14,
author={Liana B. Lisboa and J. Jenny Li and P. Morreale and D. Heer and D. M. Weiss},
title={An Evaluation to Compare Software Product Line Decision Model and Feature Model},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},
year={2014},
pages={144-151},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004887001440151},
isbn={978-989-758-030-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
TI - An Evaluation to Compare Software Product Line Decision Model and Feature Model
SN - 978-989-758-030-7
AU - Lisboa L.
AU - Li J.
AU - Morreale P.
AU - Heer D.
AU - Weiss D.
PY - 2014
SP - 144
EP - 151
DO - 10.5220/0004887001440151