Core Asset and Process Implications

170 Pages·2010·4.98 MB·English

Model Driven Product Line Engineering:
Core Asset and Process Implications
Dissertation
presented to
the Department of Computer Languages and Systems of
the University of the Basque Country
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(“doctor europeus” mention)
Maider Azanza Sesé
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Oscar Díaz García
San Sebastián, Spain, 2011
This work was hosted by the University of the Basque Country (Fac-
ulty of Computer Sciences). The author enjoyed a doctoral grant from the
Basque Goverment under the “Researchers Training Program” during the
years 2005 to 2009. The work was was co-supported by the Spanish Min-
istry of Education, and the European Social Fund under contracts WAPO
(TIN2005-05610) and MODELINE (TIN2008-06507-C02-01).
The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason
for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when contemplating the mys-
teries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough
if one tries merely to comprehend a little of the mystery every day.
– Albert Einstein
Summary
Reuse is at the heart of major improvements in productivity and quality in
Software Engineering. Both Model Driven Engineering (MDE) and Soft-
ware Product Line Engineering (SPLE) are software development paradigms
that promote reuse. Specifically, they promote systematic reuse and a de-
parture from craftsmanship towards an industrialization of the software
development process. MDE and SPLE have established their benefits sep-
arately. Their combination, here called Model Driven Product Line Engi-
neering (MDPLE), gathers together the advantages of both.
Nevertheless, this blending requires MDE to be recasted in SPLE terms.
This has implications on both the core assets and the software development
process. The challenges are twofold: (i) models become central core as-
sets from which products are obtained and (ii) the software development
process needs to cater for the changes that SPLE and MDE introduce. This
dissertation proposes a solution to the first challenge following a feature
oriented approach, with an emphasis on reuse and early detection of in-
consistencies. The second part is dedicated to assembly processes, a clear
example of the complexity MDPLE introduces in software development
processes. This work advocates for a new discipline inside the general
software development process, i.e., the Assembly Plan Management, which
raises the abstraction level and increases reuse in such processes. Different
case studies illustrate the presented ideas.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 General Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 This Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Background 11
2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Model Driven Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.3 Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.4 Metamodels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.5 General Purpose Languages vs. Domain Specific
Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.6 Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.7 The Four Layer Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.8 Technical Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.9 Successful Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.10 Current Research Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
ix
MDPLE: Core Asset and Process Implications
2.3 Software Product Line Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.3 Engineering a Software Product Line . . . . . . . 29
2.3.4 Successful Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3.5 Current Research Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.4 Software Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4.3 Successful Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.4.4 Current Research Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.5 Model Driven Product Line Engineering . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.5.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5.3 Successful Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5.4 Current Research Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3 Problem Statement 41
3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2 Core Asset Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3 Process Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.1 General Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3.2 The Assembly Process in MDPLE . . . . . . . . . 48
3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4 Domain Specific Composition of Model Deltas 53
4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.2 The Crime and Safety Survey Questionnaire SPL . . . . . 54
4.3 Delta Metamodels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4 Delta Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.5 Defining Deltas for UML Interaction Diagrams . . . . . . 64
x