Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3559712.3559713acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbcarsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Field Study on Reference Architectural Decisions for Developing a UML-based Software Product Line Tool

Published: 03 October 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Variability modeling in Software Product Lines (SPL) encompasses a set of activities, such as domain analysis, identification of requirements, implementation of variability, variant management, and generation of products. In this context, the existing literature does not present any tools with native support for UML-based SPLs. To deal with the lack of practical solutions, an alternative to variability modeling is to handle XMI files for general-purpose UML tools. However, it requires significant effort, is time-consuming and error-prone, and does not provide users control over data for the SPL life cycle activities. To cope with this scenario, we developed SMartyModeling, an environment to allow SPL-related variability modeling on requirements, features, and UML models, thus providing visualization techniques to SPL/variability information, traceability, and configuration of products. To evolve SMartyModeling, we previously evaluated it throughout two studies: a comparative experiment between SMartyModeling and a general-purpose UML modeling tool, and a survey-based qualitative study on its usability. Results made it possible to identify benefits, limitations, and corrections on the main problems reported by the participants. More specifically in this paper, we present results of a field study focused on analyzing architectural decisions taken during the SMartyModeling instantiation process from a variability tools reference architecture (RA). We took into consideration the opinion of 13 experts in SPL and RA. Experts considered the architectural decisions and the solutions proposed adequate, and the architecture clear and objective. In addition, the analysis of the experts quotes allowed us to identify improvements in the instantiation process, as well as in the instantiated architecture. For example, inclusion of notations to ease the understanding of the instantiation process and the underlying decisions, clear representation of the MVC Design Pattern, and inclusion of other elements to the source RA.

References

[1]
Ana Allian, Edson OliveiraJr, Rafael Capilla, and Elisa Nakagawa. 2020. Have Variability Tools Fulfilled the Needs of the Software Industry?J. Uni. Comp. Sci. 26(2020), 1281–1311. Issue 10.
[2]
Ana Paula Allian. 2016. VMTools-RA: a reference architecture for software variability tools. Master’s thesis. State University of Maringá. in Portuguese.
[3]
Rabih Bashroush 2017. CASE Tool Support for Variability Management in Software Product Lines. ACM Comput. Surv. 50, 1 (2017), 1–45.
[4]
Thorsten Berger 2013. A Survey of Variability Modeling in Industrial Practice. In VaMoS. ACM, 1–8.
[5]
Aufeef Chauhan, Muhammad Ali Babar, and Christian Probst. 2016. A Process Framework for Designing Software Reference Architectures for Providing Tools as a Service. PROFES (2016), 111–126.
[6]
Lianping Chen and Muhammad Ali Babar. 2011. A systematic review of evaluation of variability management approaches in software product lines. Inf. Soft. Tech. 53, 4 (2011), 344–362.
[7]
Lianping Chen, Muhammad Ali Babar, and Nour Ali. 2009. Variability Management in Software Product Lines: A Systematic Review. In SPLC. 81–90.
[8]
Juliet M. Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. (3 ed.). Sage Publications.
[9]
M. Galster 2014. Variability in Software Systems - A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 40, 3 (2014), 282–306.
[10]
Hassan Gomaa. 2006. Designing software product lines with uml 2.0: From use cases to pattern-based software architectures. Vol. 4039. Springer-Verlag.
[11]
Eduardo Guerra, Felipe Alves, Uira Kulesza, and Clovis Fernandes. 2013. A reference architecture for organizing the internal structure of metadata-based frameworks. J. Syst. Soft. 86, 5 (2013), 1239–1256.
[12]
Øystein Haugen, Andrzej Wąsowski, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2013. CVL: Common Variability Language. In SPLC. 277–278.
[13]
Liana B. Lisboa 2010. A Systematic Review of Domain Analysis Tools. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 1 (2010), 1–13.
[14]
Fan Long, Peter Amidon, and Martin Rinard. 2017. Automatic Inference of Code Transforms for Patch Generation Systems. In FSE. 727–739.
[15]
Nikos Makris, Pavlos Basaras, Thanasis Korakis, Navid Nikaein, and Leandros Tassiulas. 2017. Experimental Evaluation of Functional Splits for 5G Cloud-RANs. ICC (05 2017), 1–6. Paris, 2017.
[16]
C. Marimuthu and K. Chandrasekaran. 2017. Systematic Studies in Software Product Lines: A Tertiary Study. In Proceedings of the 21st International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A. ACM, 143–152.
[17]
Jens Meinicke, Thomas Thum, Reimar Schroter, Fabian Benduhn, and Gunter Saake. 2014. An Overview on Analysis Tools for Software Product Lines. In SPLC. ACM, 94–101.
[18]
Varvana Myllärniemi, Mikko Raatikainen, and Tomi Männistö. 2012. A Systematically Conducted Literature Review: Quality Attribute Variability in Software Product Lines. In SPLC. ACM, 41–45.
[19]
Lucas Oliveira and Elisa Nakagawa. 2011. A Service-Oriented Reference Architecture for Software Testing Tools. In Software Architecture. Springer, 405–421.
[20]
Edson OliveiraJr, Itana M. S. Gimenes, and José Carlos Maldonado. 2010. Systematic Management of Variability in UML-based Software Product Lines. JUCS - Journal of Universal Computer Science 16, 17 (2010), 2374–2393.
[21]
Juliana Alves Pereira, Kattiana Constantino, and Eduardo Figueiredo. 2014. A Systematic Literature Review of Software Product Line Management Tools. In Software Reuse for Dynamic Systems in the Cloud and Beyond. Springer, 73–89.
[22]
Juliana Alves Pereira, Kattiana Constantino, and Eduardo Figueiredo. 2014. A Systematic Literature Review of Software Product Line Management Tools. Springer, 73–89.
[23]
Mikko Raatikainen, Juha Tiihonen, and Tomi Männistö. 2019. Software product lines and variability modeling: A tertiary study. J. Sys. Sof. 149(2019), 485–510.
[24]
Leandro Silva., Edson OliveiraJr., and Avelino Zorzo.2020. Feasibility Analysis of SMartyModeling for Modeling UML-based Software Product Lines. In ICEIS. 442–449.
[25]
Leandro Flores Silva and Edson OliveiraJr. 2020. Evaluating Usefulness, Ease of Use and Usability of an UML-Based Software Product Line Tool. In SBES. ACM, 798–807.
[26]
T. Toukabri, M. Tsukada, T. Ernst, and L. Bettaieb. 2014. Experimental evaluation of an open source implementation of IPv6 GeoNetworking in VANETs. In 2011 11th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications. 237–245.
[27]
Tewfik Ziadi, Loc Helouet, and Jean-Marc Jezequel. 2003. Towards a UML profile for Software Product Lines. In Software Product-Family Engineering. Springer, 129–139.

Index Terms

  1. A Field Study on Reference Architectural Decisions for Developing a UML-based Software Product Line Tool

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    SBCARS '22: Proceedings of the 16th Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures, and Reuse
    October 2022
    90 pages
    ISBN:9781450397452
    DOI:10.1145/3559712
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 03 October 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Architectural Decisions
    2. Field Study
    3. Reference Architecture
    4. Software Product Line
    5. UML
    6. Variability

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Funding Sources

    • CAPES/Brazil

    Conference

    SBCARS 2022

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 23 of 79 submissions, 29%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 58
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)7
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
    Reflects downloads up to 16 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media