skip to main content
10.1145/3382026.3425768acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessplcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards Transforming Variability Models: Usage Scenarios, Required Capabilities and Challenges

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

A plethora of variability modeling approaches has been developed in the last 30 years, e.g., feature modeling, decision modeling, Orthogonal Variability Modeling (OVM), and UML-based variability modeling. While feature modeling approaches are probably the most common and well-known group of variability modeling approaches, even within that group multiple variants have been developed, i.e., there is not just one type of feature model. Many variability modeling approaches have been demonstrated as useful for a certain purpose, e.g., domain analysis or configuration of products derived from a software product line. Nevertheless, industry frequently develops their own custom solutions to manage variability. The (still growing) number of modeling approaches simply makes it difficult to find, understand, and eventually pick an approach for a specific (set of) systems or context. In this paper, we discuss usage scenarios, required capabilities and challenges for an approach for (semi-)automatically transforming variability models. Such an approach would support researchers and practitioners experimenting with and comparing different variability models and switching from one modeling approach to another. We present the key components of our envisioned approach and conclude with a research agenda.

References

  1. Mathieu Acher, Anthony Cleve, Gilles Perrouin, Patrick Heymans, Charles Vanbeneden, Philippe Collet, and Philippe Lahire. 2012. On Extracting Feature Models from Product Descriptions. In Proc. of the Sixth International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems. ACM, 45--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Nele Andersen, Krzysztof Czarnecki, Steven She, and Andrzej Wąsowski. 2012. Efficient Synthesis of Feature Models. In Proc. of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference - Volume 1. ACM, 106--115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Rabih Bashroush, Muhammad Garba, Rick Rabiser, Iris Groher, and Goetz Botterweck. 2017. Case tool support for variability management in software product lines. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 50, 1 (2017), 14:1--14:45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Don Batory. 2005. Feature Models, Grammars, and Propositional Formulas. In Software Product Lines, Henk Obbink and Klaus Pohl (Eds.). Springer, 7--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Maurice H. ter Beek, Klaus Schmid, and Holger Eichelberger. 2019. Textual Variability Modeling Languages: An Overview and Considerations. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume B (SPLC '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 151--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Thorsten Berger and Philippe Collet. 2019. Usage scenarios for a common feature modeling language. In Proc. of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference-Volume B. ACM, 174--181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Thorsten Berger, Daniela Lettner, Julia Rubin, Paul Grünbacher, Adeline Silva, Martin Becker, Marsha Chechik, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2015. What is a feature?: a qualitative study of features in industrial software product lines. In Proc. of the 19th International Software Product Line Conference. ACM, 16--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Thorsten Berger, Ralf Rublack, Divya Nair, Joanne M Atlee, Martin Becker, Krzysztof Czarnecki, and Andrzej Wąsowski. 2013. A survey of variability modeling in industrial practice. In Proc. of the 7th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems. ACM, 7--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Thorsten Berger, Steven She, Rafael Lotufo, Andrzej Wąsowski, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2010. Variability modeling in the real: a perspective from the operating systems domain. In Proc. of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. ACM, 73--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Marco Brambilla, Jordi Cabot, and Manuel Wimmer. 2017. Model-driven software engineering in practice. Synthesis Lectures on Soft. Eng. 3, 1 (2017), 1--207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Lianping Chen and Muhammad Ali Babar. 2011. A systematic review of evaluation of variability management approaches in software product lines. Information and Software Technology 53, 4 (2011), 344--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Software Productivity Consortium. 1991. Synthesis Guidebook. Technical Report. SPC-91122-MC. Herndon, Virginia: Software Productivity Consortium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Krzysztof Czarnecki, Paul Grünbacher, Rick Rabiser, Klaus Schmid, and Andrzej Wąsowski. 2012. Cool Features and Tough Decisions: A Comparison of Variability Modeling Approaches. In Proc. of the 6th International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems. ACM, 173--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Krzysztof Czarnecki and Andrzej Wąsowski. 2007. Feature Diagrams and Logics: There and Back Again. In Proc. of the 11th International Software Product Line Conference. IEEE, 23--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Deepak Dhungana, Paul Grünbacher, and Rick Rabiser. 2011. The DOPLER Meta-Tool for Decision-Oriented Variability Modeling: A Multiple Case Study. Automated Software Engineering 18, 1 (2011), 77--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Holger Eichelberger and Klaus Schmid. 2013. A systematic analysis of textual variability modeling languages. In Proc. of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference. ACM, 12--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Sascha El-Sharkawy, Stephan Dederichs, and Klaus Schmid. 2012. From Feature Models to Decision Models and Back Again: An Analysis Based on Formal Transformations. In Proc. of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference. ACM, 126--135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kevin Feichtinger, Kristof Meixner, Rick Rabiser, and Stefan Biffl. 2020. Variability Transformation from Industrial Engineering Artifacts: An Example in the Cyber-Physical Production Systems Domain. In Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Variability and Evolution of Software-Intensive Systems (VariVolution), co-located with SPLC 2020. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kevin Feichtinger and Rick Rabiser. 2020. Variability Model Transformations: Towards Unifying Variability Modeling. In Proc. of the 46th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. IEEE, Portoroz, Slovenia.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. José A Galindo, Deepak Dhungana, Rick Rabiser, David Benavides, Goetz Botterweck, and Paul Grünbacher. 2015. Supporting distributed product configuration by integrating heterogeneous variability modeling approaches. Information and Software Technology 62 (2015), 78--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Matthias Galster, Danny Weyns, Dan Tofan, Bartosz Michalik, and Paris Avgeriou. 2013. Variability in software systems-a systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 40, 3 (2013), 282--306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Hassan Gomaa. 2005. Designing software product lines with UML. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Paul Grünbacher, Rick Rabiser, and Deepak Dhungana. 2008. Product Line Tools Are Product Lines Too: Lessons Learned from Developing a Tool Suite. In Proc. of the 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. IEEE/ACM, 351--354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Paul Grünbacher, Rick Rabiser, Deepak Dhungana, and Martin Lehofer. 2009. Model-based Customization and Deployment of Eclipse-Based Tools: Industrial Experiences. In Proc. of the 24th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. IEEE/ACM, 247--256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Øystein Haugen, Andrzej Wąsowski, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2013. CVL: common variability language. In Proc. of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference. ACM, 277--277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Daniel Hinterreiter, Michael Nieke, Lukas Linsbauer, Christoph Seidl, Herbert Prähofer, and Paul Grünbacher. 2019. Harmonized Temporal Feature Modeling to Uniformly Perform, Track, Analyze, and Replay Software Product Line Evolution. In Proc. of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences. ACM, 115--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Kyo C Kang, Sholom G Cohen, James A Hess, William E Novak, and A Spencer Peterson. 1990. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report. Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa, Software Engineering Inst.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Alexander Knüppel, Thomas Thüm, Stephan Mennicke, Jens Meinicke, and Ina Schaefer. 2017. Is There a Mismatch between Real-World Feature Models and Product-Line Research?. In Proc. of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 291--302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Sebastian Krieter, Thomas Thüm, Sandro Schulze, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2020. YASA: Yet Another Sampling Algorithm. In Proc. of the 14th International Working Conference on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems. ACM, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jabier Martinez, Wesley KG Assunção, and Tewfik Ziadi. 2017. ESPLA: A catalog of Extractive SPL Adoption case studies. In Proc. of the 21st International Systems and Software Product Line Conference. ACM, 38--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Klaus Pohl, Günter Böckle, and Frank J van der Linden. 2005. Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Mikko Raatikainen, Juha Tiihonen, and Tomi Männistö. 2019. Software product lines and variability modeling: A tertiary study. Journal of Systems and Software 149 (2019), 485--510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Rick Rabiser, Michael Vierhauser, Paul Grünbacher, Deepak Dhungana, Herwig Schreiner, and Martin Lehofer. 2014. Supporting Multiplicity and Hierarchy in Model-based Configuration: Experiences and Lessons Learned. In Proc. of the 17th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer, 320--336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Fabricia Roos Frantz, David Felipe Benavides Cuevas, and Antonio Ruiz Cortés. 2009. Feature model to orthogonal variability model transformation towards interoperability between tools. In Knowledge Industry Survival Strategy Initiative, Kiss Workshop (ASE 2009), Auckland, New Zealand.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Klaus Schmid, Rick Rabiser, and Paul Grünbacher. 2011. A comparison of decision modeling approaches in product lines. In Proc. of the 5th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems. ACM, 119--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Patrick Heymans, and Jean-Christophe Trigaux. 2006. Feature diagrams: A survey and a formal semantics. In Proc. of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference. IEEE, 139--148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Pierre-Yves Schobbens, Patrick Heymans, Jean-Christophe Trigaux, and Yves Bontemps. 2007. Generic semantics of feature diagrams. Computer Networks 51, 2 (2007), 456--479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Michael Schulze and Robert Hellebrand. 2015. Variability Exchange Language-A Generic Exchange Format for Variability Data.. In Software Engineering (Workshops). 71--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Christoph Seidl, Tim Winkelmann, and Ina Schaefer. 2016. A software product line of feature modeling notations and cross-tree constraint languages. In Modellierung 2016, Andreas Oberweis and Ralf Reussner (Eds.). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn, 157--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Samuel Sepúlveda, Carlos Cares, and Cristina Cachero. 2012. Towards a unified feature metamodel: A systematic comparison of feature languages. In Proc. of the 7th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies. 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Steven She, Rafael Lotufo, Thorsten Berger, Andrzej Wąsowski, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2010. The Variability Model of The Linux Kernel. In Proc. of the 5th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems. ACM, 45--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Marco Sinnema and Sybren Deelstra. 2007. Classifying variability modeling techniques. Information and Software Technology 49, 7 (2007), 717--739.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Bart Veer and John Dallaway. 2011. The eCos Component Writer's Guide. Manual, available online at http://www.gaisler.com/doc/ecos-2.0-cdl-guide-a4.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Towards Transforming Variability Models: Usage Scenarios, Required Capabilities and Challenges

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SPLC '20: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume B
      October 2020
      139 pages

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      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: 27 October 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate167of463submissions,36%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader