![](bg8.png)
notes. Therefore, for the second version, we chose to
hide the UML notes from the modeling panel, how-
ever, maintaining stereotypes related to SPL concepts.
The variability attributes will be presented in the In-
formation Panel (Component E) in Figure 1. This will
not compromise the readability of the entire diagram.
To improve usability of SMartyModeling, we in-
cluded a zoom+ button and a zoom- button in Compo-
nent A. Furthermore, we identified the need to define
a single window for modeling, already including the
information, buttons and the file panels. For the sec-
ond version, we chose to avoid, if possible, the use of
modal windows during modeling. Therefore, the use
of the JGraph library allows the creation of new ele-
ments and associations directly in the modeling panel.
For edits, we have chosen to allow editing of attributes
in an Information Panel.
As SMartyModeling required longer time for
modeling diagrams, we improved it by making select-
ing and dragging/dropping elements more intuitive.
For the second version, we expand the mouse events
for the Modeling Panel. The new events allow the cre-
ation, alteration, removal of the elements directly in
the modeling. They also include resizing, movement
and definition of points for associations.
For importing and exporting project information,
the classes in the second version were rewritten using
the org.w3c.dom
8
Package. Project information con-
tinues to be organized in a hierarchical tag file. How-
ever, the export classes have been rewritten using their
own classes to handle tag documents.
5 CONCLUSION
We analyzed the feasibility of SMartyModeling in
two studies: one qualitative and one experiment.
The qualitative study allowed identifying the
points to be improved, in particular, the limitation of
the interface in manipulating the elements and defin-
ing the associations of SMartyModeling elements.
Then, we performed an experiment to identify
efficiency and effectiveness of SMartyModeling and
Astah, and to provide initial evidence on the feasibil-
ity of SMartyModeling and its further development.
Generally analyzing, SMartyModeling helps the
variability modeling for SPL, but some further re-
search and development will help to improve it. New
experiments and replications should be planned and
conducted to reduce threats to analyze the efficiency
and effectiveness of SMartyModeling in relation to
8
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/org/w3c/
dom
other well-evaluated tools as those in the Agner and
Lethbridge (2017) survey and to generalize the re-
sults. Extending this experiment to more complex
SPLs and support to other UML diagrams should be
performed.
REFERENCES
Agner, L. T. W. and Lethbridge, T. C. (2017). A survey of
tool use in modeling education. In ACM/IEEE MOD-
ELS, pages 303–311, USA. IEEE.
Bashroush, R., Garba, M., Rabiser, R., Groher, I., and Bot-
terweck, G. (2017). Case tool support for variability
management in software product lines. ACM Comput.
Surv., 50(1):14:1–14:45.
Berger, T., Rublack, R., Nair, D., Atlee, J. M., Becker,
M., Czarnecki, K., and W ˛asowski, A. (2013). A sur-
vey of variability modeling in industrial practice. In
VaMoS, VaMoS ’13, pages 7:1–7:8, New York, NY,
USA. ACM.
Chen, L., Ali Babar, M., and Ali, N. (2009). Variability
management in software product lines: A systematic
review. In SPLC, SPLC ’09, pages 81–90, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA. Carnegie Mellon University.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative
Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
Califórnia, USA.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology.
MIS Q., 13(3):319–340.
Galster, M., Weyns, D., Tofan, D., Michalik, B., and Avge-
riou, P. (2014). Variability in software systems - a sys-
tematic literature review. IEEE TOSEM, 40(3):282–
306.
Linden, F. J. v. d., Schmid, K., and Rommes, E. (2007).
Software Product Lines in Action: The Best Indus-
trial Practice in Product Line Engineering. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lisboa, L. B., Garcia, V. C., Lucrédio, D., de Almeida,
E. S., de Lemos Meira, S. R., and de Mattos Fortes,
R. P. (2010). A systematic review of domain analysis
tools. Inf. Softw. Technol., 52(1):1–13.
OliveiraJr, E., Gimenes, I. M. S., and Maldonado, J. C.
(2010). Systematic management of variability in uml-
based software product lines. JUCS, 16(17):2374–
2393.
Pereira, J. A., Constantino, K., and Figueiredo, E. (2014).
A systematic literature review of software product
line management tools. In Software Reuse for Dy-
namic Systems in the Cloud and Beyond, pages 73–89,
Cham. Springer International Publishing.
Raatikainen, M., Tiihonen, J., and Männistö, T. (2019).
Software product lines and variability modeling: A
tertiary study. JSS, 149:485 – 510.
Feasibility Analysis of SMartyModeling for Modeling UML-based Software Product Lines
449