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.
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Don Batory. 2005. Feature Models, Grammars, and Propositional Formulas. In Software Product Lines, Henk Obbink and Klaus Pohl (Eds.). Springer, 7--20.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Software Productivity Consortium. 1991. Synthesis Guidebook. Technical Report. SPC-91122-MC. Herndon, Virginia: Software Productivity Consortium.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Hassan Gomaa. 2005. Designing software product lines with UML. IEEE.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Klaus Pohl, Günter Böckle, and Frank J van der Linden. 2005. Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Schulze and Robert Hellebrand. 2015. Variability Exchange Language-A Generic Exchange Format for Variability Data.. In Software Engineering (Workshops). 71--80.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Marco Sinnema and Sybren Deelstra. 2007. Classifying variability modeling techniques. Information and Software Technology 49, 7 (2007), 717--739.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
Index Terms
- Towards Transforming Variability Models: Usage Scenarios, Required Capabilities and Challenges
Recommendations
TRAVART: An Approach for Transforming Variability Models
VaMoS '21: Proceedings of the 15th International Working Conference on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive SystemsA large number of variability modeling approaches have been developed including feature modeling, decision modeling, and Orthogonal Variability Modeling (OVM). Multiple variants of each approach have been developed, i.e., there are many different types ...
How flexible must a transformation approach for variability models and custom variability representations be?
SPLC '21: Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume BA plethora of variability modeling approaches has been developed in the last 30 years. Feature modeling approaches are probably the most common and well-known approaches. All existing variability modeling approaches have their benefits and drawbacks and ...
A flexible approach for transforming variability models
SPLC '21: Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume BIn software product lines, engineers use variability models to explicitly represent commonalities and variability. A plethora of variability modeling approaches have been proposed in the last 30 years, and there is no standard variability modeling ...
Comments