Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A model-driven approach for the derivation of architectural requirements of software product lines

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The alignment of the software architecture and the functional requirements of a system is a demanding task because of the difficulty in tracing design elements to requirements. The four-step rule set (4SRS) is a unified modeling language (UML)-based model-driven method for single system development which provides support to the software architect in this task. This paper presents an evolution of the 4SRS method aimed at software product lines. In particular, we describe how to address the transformation of functional requirements (use cases) into component-based requirements for the product line architecture. The result is a UML-based model-driven method that can be applied in combination with metamodeling tools such as the eclipse modeling framework (EMF) to derive the architecture of software product lines. We present our approach in a practical way and illustrate it with an example. We also discuss how our proposals are related to the work of other authors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. OMG (2005) MOF QVT final adopted specification. OMG, Available at http://www.omg.org/

  2. Clements P, Northrop L (2002) Software product lines—practices and patterns. Addison Wesley, Reading

  3. Machado RJ, Fernandes JM, Monteiro P, Rodrigues H (2005) On the transformation of UML models for service-oriented software. In: ECBS international conference and workshop on the engineering of computer based systems. Greenbelt, MD

  4. OMG (2006) Formal/05-07-04 unified modeling language version 2.0: superstructure. OMG, Available at http://www.omg.org/

  5. Fontoura M, Pree W, Rumpe B (2000) UML-F: a modeling language for object-oriented frameworks. ECOOP 2000-object-oriented programming conference

  6. Jacobson I, Griss M, Jonsson P (1997) Software reuse: architecture, process and organization for business success. Addison Wesley Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Marcus Alanen, Lilius J, Porres I, Truscan D (2005) On modeling techniques for supporting model driven development of protocol processing applications. In: Beydeda S, Book M, Gruhn V (eds) Model driven software development—vol II of research and practice in software engineering, vol 2. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 305–328

    Google Scholar 

  8. Braganca A, Machado RJ (2005) Deriving software product line’s architectural requirements from use cases: an experimental approach. In: Second international workshop on model-based methodologies for pervasive and embedded software. Rennes, France

  9. Braganca A, Machado RJ (2006) Extending UML 2.0 metamodel for complementary usages of the ≪ extend ≫ relationship within use case variability specification. SPLC 2006. Baltimore, Maryland

  10. Gomaa H (2005) Designing software product lines with UML. Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kang KC, Cohen SG, Hess JA, Novak WE, Peterson AS (1990) Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study technical report, CMU/SEI-90-TR-21. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

  12. Griss ML, Favaro J, d’Alessandro M (1998) Integrating feature modeling with the RSEB. In: Fifth international conference on software reuse. Victoria, Canada

  13. Cockburn A (2001) Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  14. Metz P, O’Brian J, Weber W (2004) Specifying use case interaction: clarifying extension points and points of rejoin. J Object Technol

  15. Hurlbut R (1998) Managing domain architecture evolution through adaptive use case and business rule models. Ph.D. at Graduate College, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago

  16. Overgaard G, Palmkvist K (1998) A formal approach to use cases and their relationships. In: ≪ UML ≫ 98: beyond the notation, ecole superieure des sciences appliques pour l’Ingenieur, Mulhouse. Universite de Haut-Alsace, France

  17. Porres I (2001) Modeling and analysing software behavior in UML. Ph.D. at Department of Computer Science, Abo Akademi University, Turku, Finland

  18. Stevens P (2001) On use cases and their relationships in the unified modelling language. FASE’01

  19. Fantechi A, Gnesi S, Lami G, Nesti E (2004) A methodology for the derivation and verification of use cases for product lines. SPLC2004, Boston

  20. Eriksson M, Borstler J, Borg K (2005) The PLUSS approach—domain modeling with features, use cases and use case realizations. SPLC2005, Rennes, France

  21. Jacobson I, Ng P-W (2005) Aspect-oriented software development with use cases. Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  22. Braganca A, Machado RJ (2007) Automating mappings between use case diagrams and feature models for software product lines. SPLC 2007, Kyoto, Japan

  23. Pree W, Fontoura M, Rumpe B (2002) Product line annotations with UML-F. In: Software product lines—second international conference. SPLC 2, San Diego

  24. Jacobson I, Christerson M, Jonsson P, Overgaard G (1992) Object-oriented software engineering: a use case driven approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns—elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  26. D’Souza DF, Wills AC (1998) Objects, components, and frameworks with uml: the catalysis(SM) approach. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  27. University of Paderborn Software Engineering Group, 2006, Fujaba “Fujaba”, vol 2007. http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/cs/fujaba/index.html

  28. Eclipse (2006) “Eclipse Modeling Framework,” Eclipse Foundation. Available at http://www.eclipse.org/emf/

  29. Eclipse (2006) “Graphical Modeling Framework,” Eclipse Foundation. Available at http://www.eclipse.org/gmf/

  30. Braganca A, Machado RJ (2007) Adopting computational independent models for derivation of architectural requirements of software product lines. Mompes, Braga, Portugal

  31. Braganca A, Machado RJ (2008) Transformation patterns for multi-staged model-driven software development. SPLC 2008. Limerick, Ireland

  32. Bragança A (2008) Methodological approaches and techniques for model driven development of software product lines. Ph.D. at Information Systems Department, School of Engineering, University of Minho, Braga

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics Engineering, School of Engineering of Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Alexandre Bragança

  2. Information Systems Department, School of Engineering of University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

    Ricardo J. Machado

Authors
  1. Alexandre Bragança
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ricardo J. Machado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre Bragança.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bragança, A., Machado, R.J. A model-driven approach for the derivation of architectural requirements of software product lines. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 5, 65–78 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-009-0078-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-009-0078-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation