skip to main content
10.1145/3419804.3420270acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Action-Driven Consistency for Modular Multi-Language Systems with Perspectives

Published:19 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Model-driven engineering advocates the use of different modelling languages and multiple views to describe the characteristics of a complex system. This allows to express a specific system characteristic with the most appropriate modelling language. However, establishing the conceptual relationships between elements from different languages and then consistently maintaining the links between model elements are non-trivial tasks. In this paper, we propose Action-Driven Consistency (ADC) for maintaining the links between different model elements from different languages defined with the Perspectives for Multi-Language Systems (PML) framework. PML aims to promote modularity in language reuse, inter-language consistency, and combination of languages. A perspective groups different languages, each playing a role for a common modelling purpose. PML defines perspective actions based on existing language actions to maintain consistent models. In this work, we present generic templates from which perspective actions can be generated given relationships between language metaclasses. This allows the perspective designer to focus on these key relationships and frees her from the error-prone implementation of perspective actions. We illustrate our approach with a perspective that combines class diagram and use case diagram languages for the purpose of requirement elicitation and apply it to a bank application.

References

  1. Hyacinth Ali, Gunter Mussbacher, and Jörg Kienzle. 2019. Generic Navigation of Model-Based Development Artefacts. In Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering, MiSE 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Hyacinth Ali, Gunter Mussbacher, and Jörg Kienzle. 2019. Towards Modular Combination and Reuse of Languages with Perspectives. In 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C). IEEE, 387--394.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Colin Atkinson, Dietmar Stoll, and Philipp Bostan. 2009. Orthographic software modeling: a practical approach to view-based development. In Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering. Springer, 206--219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett Bryant, Jean-Marc Jézéquel, Ralf Lämmel, Marjan Mernik, Martin Schindler, Friedrich Steinmann, Juha-Pekka Tolvanen, Antonio Vallecillo, and Markus Völter. 2015. Globalized domain specific language engineering. In Globalizing Domain-Specific Languages. Springer, 43--69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. James Bucanek. 2009. Model-view-controller pattern. Learn Objective-C for Java Developers (2009), 353--402.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Erik Johannes Burger. 2013. Flexible views for view-based model-driven development. In Proceedings of the 18th international doctoral symposium on Components and architecture. ACM, 25--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Antonio Cicchetti, Davide Di Ruscio, Romina Eramo, and Alfonso Pierantonio. 2010. JTL: a bidirectional and change propagating transformation language. In Intl. Conf. on Software Language Engineering. Springer, 183--202.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Benoit Combemale, Julien Deantoni, Benoit Baudry, Robert B France, Jean-Marc Jézéquel, and Jeff Gray. 2014. Globalizing modeling languages. Computer 47, 6 (2014), 68--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Julien Deantoni. 2016. Modeling the behavioral semantics of heterogeneous languages and their coordination. In 2016 Architecture-Centric Virtual Integration (ACVI). IEEE, 12--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Thomas Degueule, Benoit Combemale, Arnaud Blouin, Olivier Barais, and Jean-Marc Jézéquel. 2015. Melange: A meta-language for modular and reusable development of dsls. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN Intl. Conference on Software Language Engineering. ACM, 25--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dimitrios Kolovos, Richard Paige, and Fiona Polack. 2008. Detecting and repairing inconsistencies across heterogeneous models. In 2008 1st International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation. IEEE, 356--364.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Max E Kramer. 2015. A Generative approach to change-driven consistency in multi-view modeling. In Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on Quality of Software Architectures. ACM, 129--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Max E Kramer, Erik Burger, and Michael Langhammer. 2013. View-Centric Engineering with Synchronized Heterogeneous Models. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2489861.2489864Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Max E Kramer, Michael Langhammer, Dominik Messinger, Stephan Seifermann, and Erik Burger. 2015. Change-driven consistency for component code, architectural models, and contracts. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering. ACM, 21--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Fabiana G. Marinho. 2010. A proposal for consistency checking in dynamic software product line models using OCL. Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE '10 2 (2010), 333. https://doi.org/10.1145/1810295.1810379Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Johannes Meier, Heiko Klare., Christian Tunjic., Colin Atkinson., Erik Burger., Ralf Reussner., and Andreas Winter. 2019. Single Underlying Models for Projectional, Multi-View Environments. In 7th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD. INSTICC, SciTePress, 119--130. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007396401190130Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rolf-Helge Pfeiffer and Andrzej Wasowski. 2012. Texmo: A multi-language development environment. In European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications. Springer, 178--193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Aditya A Shah, Aleksandr A Kerzhner, Dirk Schaefer, and Christiaan JJ Paredis. 2010. Multi-view modeling to support embedded systems engineering in SysML. In Graph transformations and model-driven engineering. Springer, 580--601.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. TouchCORE website. 2019. TouchCORE v7.0.2. http://touchcore.cs.mcgill.ca/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Action-Driven Consistency for Modular Multi-Language Systems with Perspectives

    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
      SAM '20: Proceedings of the 12th System Analysis and Modelling Conference
      October 2020
      156 pages
      ISBN:9781450381406
      DOI:10.1145/3419804

      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: 19 October 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      SAM '20 Paper Acceptance Rate16of26submissions,62%Overall Acceptance Rate36of59submissions,61%

      Upcoming Conference

      ICSE 2025

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader