Modeling Variability in Software Process with EPF Composer and SMartySPEM: An Empirical Qualitative Study

Jaime W. Dias, Edson OliveiraJr

Abstract

Nowadays, organizations are increasingly seeking to customize their software processes according to the market needs and projects experiences. Therefore, a systematic way to achieve such an objective is the Software Process Line (SPrL) technique, in which each member is a customized software process derived from a set of similarities and variabilities of process elements. Compositional and annotative approaches are most referenced for variability management. In this sense, the objective of this paper is to present a comparison between compositional and annotative approaches targeting variability representation capabilities from the point of view of practitioners and academic experts. The Eclipse Process Framework by means of the EPF Composer tool represents compositional approach, whereas SMartySPEM represents the annotative approach. The obtained results provided initial evidence that the annotative approach (SMartySPEM) takes advantage over the compositional approach (EPF).

References

  1. Aleixo, F., Freire, M., Santos, W., and Kulesza, U. (2010). A Model-driven Approach to Managing and Customizing Software Process Variabilities. In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 92-100. SCITEPRESS.
  2. Aleixo, F. A., Freire, M., Alencar, D., Campos, E., and Kulesza, U. (2012a). A Comparative Study of Compositional and Annotative Modelling Approaches for Software Process Lines. In Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, pages 51-60.
  3. Aleixo, F. A., Freire, M. A., Santos, W. C., and Kulesza, U. (2011). Automating the Variability Management, Customization and Deployment of Software Processes: a Model-Driven Approach. In Filipe, J. and Cordeiro, J., editors, Enterprise Information Systems, volume 73 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 372-387. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  4. Aleixo, F. A., Kulesza, U., Freire, M. A., da Costa, D. A., and Neto, E. C. (2012). Modularizing software process lines using model-driven approaches - a comparative study. In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 120-125. SCITEPRESS.
  5. Aleixo, F. A., Kulesza, U., and OliveiraJr, E. (2013). Modeling Variabilities from Software Process Lines with Compositional and Annotative Techniques: a Quantitative Study. In International Conference on ProductFocused Software Development and Process Improvement, pages 153-168.
  6. Behringer, B. (2014). Integrating Approaches for Feature Implementation. In ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 775-778, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  7. Carvalho, D. D., Chagas, L. F., Lima, A. M., and Reis, C. A. (2014). Software Process Lines: A Systematic Literature Review. In Mitasiunas, A., Rout, T., OConnor, R., and Dorling, A., editors, Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, volume 477 of Communications in Computer and Information Science, pages 118-130. Springer International Publishing.
  8. Chemuturi, M. K. and Cagley, T. M. (2010). Mastering Software Project Management: Best Practices, Tools and Techniques. J. Ross Publishing, Inc.
  9. Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Inc.
  10. Ferreira Filho, J. a. B., Barais, O., Acher, M., Baudry, B., and Le Noir, J. (2013). Generating Counterexamples of Model-based Software Product Lines: An Exploratory Study. In International Software Product Line Conference, pages 72-81, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  11. Galster, M., Weyns, D., Tofan, D., Michalik, B., and Avgeriou, P. (2013). Variability in Software Systems A Systematic Literature Review,. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, pages 81-90.
  12. Garcia-Borgonon, L., Barcelona, M. A., Garcia-Garcia, J. A., Alba, M., and Escalona, M. J. (2014). Software Process Modeling Languages: a Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology, 56(2):103-116.
  13. Geraldi, R. T., OliveiraJr, E., Conte, T. U., and Steinmacher, I. F. (2015). Checklist-based Inspection of SMarty Variability Models: Proposal and Empirical Feasibility Study. In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 268-275. SCITEPRESS.
  14. ISO (2012). ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012 Information technology - Process Assessment - Part 5: An Exemplar Software Life Cycle Process.
  15. Kalus, G. and Kuhrmann, M. (2013). Criteria for Software Process Tailoring: A Systematic Review. In International Conference on Software and System Process, pages 171-180, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  16. Kästner, C. (2010). Virtual Separation of Concerns: Toward Preprocessors 2.0. PhD thesis, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg.
  17. Kästner, C. and Apel, S. (2008). Integrating Compositional and Annotative Approaches for Product Line Engineering. In Workshop on Modularization, Composition and Generative Techniques for Product Line Engineering, pages 35-40.
  18. Kästner, C., Apel, S., and Kuhlemann, M. (2008). Granularity in Software Product Lines. In International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 311-320.
  19. Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.-M., and Irwin, J. (1997). Aspect-Oriented Programming. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, pages 220- 242. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  20. Lee, H. and Kang, K. C. (2013). A Design Feature-based Approach to Deriving Program Code from Features: A Step Towards Feature-oriented Software Development. In International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems, pages 1-6, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  21. Linden, F. J. v. d., Schmid, K., and Rommes, E. (2007). Software Product Lines in Action: The Best Industrial Practice in Product Line Engineering. SpringerVerlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA.
  22. Martínez-Ruiz, T., M ünch, J., García, F., and Piattini, M. (2012). Requirements and Constructors for Tailoring Software Processes: a Systematic Literature Review. Software Quality Control, 20(1):229-260.
  23. OliveiraJr, E., Gimenes, I. M. S., and Maldonado, J. C. (2010). Systematic Management of Variability in UML-based Software Product Lines. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 16:2374-2393.
  24. OliveiraJr, E., Pazin, M. G., Gimenes, I. M. S., Kulesza, U., and Aleixo, F. A. (2013). SMartySPEM: a SPEMbased Approach for Variability Management in Software Process Lines. In International Conference on Product-Focused Software Development and Process Improvement, pages 169-183. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  25. Rombach, D. (2005). Integrated Software Process and Product Lines. In International Conference on Unifying the Software Process Spectrum, pages 83-90. Springer-Verlag Berlin.
  26. Sommerville, I. (2015). Software Engineering. Pearson, 10 edition.
  27. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., and Wesslén, A. (2000). Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Dias J. and OliveiraJr E. (2016). Modeling Variability in Software Process with EPF Composer and SMartySPEM: An Empirical Qualitative Study . In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-187-8, pages 283-293. DOI: 10.5220/0005771502830293


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis16,
author={Jaime W. Dias and Edson OliveiraJr},
title={Modeling Variability in Software Process with EPF Composer and SMartySPEM: An Empirical Qualitative Study},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS,},
year={2016},
pages={283-293},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005771502830293},
isbn={978-989-758-187-8},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS,
TI - Modeling Variability in Software Process with EPF Composer and SMartySPEM: An Empirical Qualitative Study
SN - 978-989-758-187-8
AU - Dias J.
AU - OliveiraJr E.
PY - 2016
SP - 283
EP - 293
DO - 10.5220/0005771502830293