×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Cost-related interface for software product lines. (English) Zbl 1346.68059
Summary: Software Product Lines modeling improves software development processes by automating system debugging and analysis. The objective of this paper focuses on extending the formal framework SPLA to represent features such as cost objects and comparisons between products in terms of production costs. We illustrate this extension with a practical example by modeling the creation of valid run-lists for Chef, a widely used configuration management tool. Also, we execute our formal specification in a distributed system using SCOOP and we provide strategies to optimize the effort required to compute a SPLA term.

MSC:
68N30 Mathematical aspects of software engineering (specification, verification, metrics, requirements, etc.)
68N99 Theory of software
Software:
Kronos; Uppaal
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Kang, K.; Cohen, S.; Hess, J.; Novak, W.; Peterson, A., Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study, (1990), Carnegie Mellon University, Tech. rep. CMU/SEI-90-TR-21
[2] Griss, M.; Favaro, J., Integrating feature modeling with the RSEB, (5th International Conference on Software Reuse, ICSR’98, (1998)), 76-85
[3] Kollu, K., Evaluating the pluss domain modeling approach by modeling the arcade game maker product line, (2005), Umea University, Ph.D. thesis
[4] Eriksson, M.; Borstler, J.; Borg, K., The pluss approach - domain modeling with features, use cases and use case realizations, (9th International Conference on Software Product Lines, SPLC’06, (2006), Springer-Verlag), 33-44
[5] Sun, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, H., Formal semantics and verification for feature modeling, (10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, ICECCS’05, (2005), IEEE Computer Society Press), 303-312
[6] Höfner, P.; Khédri, R.; Möller, B., Feature algebra, (14th International Symposium on Formal Methods, FM’06, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 4085, (2006), Springer), 300-315
[7] Höfner, P.; Khédri, R.; Möller, B., An algebra of product families, Softw. Syst. Model., 10, 2, 161-182, (2011)
[8] Andres, C.; Camacho, C.; Llana, L., A formal framework for software product lines, Inf. Softw. Technol., 55, 11, 1925-1947, (2013)
[9] Mannion, M., Using first-order logic for product line model validation, (2nd International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC’02, (2002), Springer), 176-187 · Zbl 1045.68543
[10] Czarnecki, K.; Wasowski, A., Feature diagrams and logics: there and back again, (11th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC’07, (2007), IEEE Computer Society Press), 23-34
[11] Asirelli, P.; ter Beek, M. H.; Gnesi, S.; Fantechi, A., A deontic logical framework for modelling product families, (4th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems, VaMoS’10, (2010)), 37-44
[12] Asirelli, P.; ter Beek, M. H.; Fantechi, A.; Gnesi, S., A logical framework to deal with variability, (8th International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods, IFM’10, (2010), Springer), 43-58
[13] Nummenmaa, J.; Nummenmaa, T.; Zhang, Z., On the use of LTSs to analyze software product line products composed of features, (Sun, F.; Li, T.; Li, H., Knowledge Engineering and Management, Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput., vol. 214, (2014), Springer Berlin, Heidelberg), 531-541
[14] Nakajima, S., Semi-automated diagnosis of FODA feature diagram, (25th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC’10, (2010), ACM Press), 2191-2197
[15] Bontemps, Y.; Heymans, P.; Schobbens, P.; Trigaux, J., Semantics of FODA feature diagrams, (1st Workshop on Software Variability Management for Product Derivation - Towards Tool Support, SPLCW’04, (2004), Springer), 48-58
[16] Nguyen, V.; Deeds-rubin, S.; Tan, T.; Boehm, B., A SLOC counting standard, (COCOMO II Forum 2007, (2007)), 1-16
[17] Boehm, B.; Abts, C.; Brown, A.; Chulani, S., Software cost estimation with COCOMO II, (2009), Prentice Hall Press
[18] Jorgensen, M., A review of studies on expert estimation of software development effort, J. Syst. Softw., 70, 1-2, 37-60, (2004)
[19] Gencel, C., How to use cosmic functional size in effort estimation models?, (Software Process and Product Measurement, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 5338, (2008), Springer Berlin, Heidelberg), 196-207
[20] Hussain, I.; Kosseim, L.; Ormandjieva, O., Approximation of cosmic functional size to support early effort estimation in agile, Data Knowl. Eng., 85, 2-14, (2013)
[21] Robbins, J.; Jacob, A., Opscode chef, (2014)
[22] Schackmann, H.; Horst, H., A cost-based approach to software product line management, (Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Product Management, IWSPM’06, (2006), IEEE Computer Society Press), 13-18
[23] Boehm, B.; Brown, A.; Madachy, R.; Yang, Y., A software product line life cycle cost estimation model, (Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE’04, (2004)), 156-164
[24] Nolan, A.; Abrahao, S., Dealing with cost estimation in software product lines: experiences and future directions, (SPLC, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 6287, (2010), Springer), 121-135
[25] Bockle, G.; Clements, P.; McGregor, J.; Muthig, D.; Schmid, K., A cost model for software product lines, (Linden, F., Software Product-Family Engineering, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 3014, (2004), Springer Berlin, Heidelberg), 310-316
[26] Anquetil, N.; Kulesza, U.; Mitschke, R.; Moreira, A.; Royer, J.-C.; Rummler, A.; Sousa, A., A model-driven traceability framework for software product lines, Softw. Syst. Model., 9, 4, 427-451, (2010)
[27] Satyananda, T. K.; Lee, D.; Kang, S.; Hashmi, S. I., Identifying traceability between feature model and software architecture in software product line using formal concept analysis, (Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference Computational Science and Its Applications, ICCSA’07, (2007), IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA), 380-388
[28] Czarnecki, K.; Pietroszek, K., Verifying feature-based model templates against well-formedness OCL constraints, (Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering, GPCE’06, (2006), ACM New York, NY, USA), 211-220
[29] Batory, D.; Benavides, D.; Ruiz, A., Automated analysis of feature models: challenges ahead, Commun. ACM, 49, 45-47, (2006)
[30] Behrmann, G.; Larsen, K. G.; Rasmussen, J. I., Optimal scheduling using priced timed automata, SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev., 32, 4, 34-40, (2005)
[31] Behrmann, G.; Fehnker, A.; Hune, T.; Larsen, K.; Pettersson, P.; Romijn, J.; Vaandrager, F., Minimum-cost reachability for priced time automata, (Di Benedetto, M.; Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 2034, (2001), Springer Berlin, Heidelberg), 147-161
[32] Alur, R.; La Torre, S.; Pappas, G., Optimal paths in weighted timed automata, (Di Benedetto, M.; Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 2034, (2001), Springer Berlin, Heidelberg), 49-62 · Zbl 0991.93076
[33] Uppaal cora, (2005)
[34] Bozga, M.; Daws, C.; Maler, O.; Olivero, A.; Tripakis, S.; Yovine, S., Kronos: a model-checking tool for real-time systems, (Ravn, A.; Rischel, H., Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 1486, (1998), Springer Berlin, Heidelberg), 298-302
[35] Behrmann, G.; David, A.; Larsen, K. G.; Hakansson, J.; Petterson, P.; Yi, W.; Hendriks, M., Uppaal 4.0, (Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, QEST’06, (2006), IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA), 125-126
[36] Nishizaki, S.; Kiyoto, H., Formal framework for cost analysis based on process algebra, (Zhao, M.; Sha, J., Communications and Information Processing, Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci., vol. 288, (2012), Springer Berlin, Heidelberg), 110-117
[37] Kiyoto, H.; Nishizaki, S., Extended process algebra for cost analysis, Found. Comput. Sci. Technol., 2, 2, 197-214, (2012)
[38] Hillston, J., Process algebras for quantitative analysis, (Proceedings 20th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS’05, (2005), IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA), 239-248
[39] Buchholz, P.; Kemper, P., Quantifying the dynamic behavior of process algebras, (PAPM-PROBMIV 2001, Aachen, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 2165, (2001)), 184-199 · Zbl 1007.68130
[40] Bosch, J., Design and use of software architectures: adopting and evolving a product-line approach, (2000), Addison-Wesley
[41] Atkinson, C.; Bayer, J.; Bunse, C.; Kamsties, E.; Laitenberger, O.; Laqua, R.; Muthig, D.; Paech, B.; Wüst, J.; Zettel, J., Component-based product line engineering with UML, (2002), Addison-Wesley
[42] Krzysztof, C.; Simon, H.; Ulrich, W., Staged configuration through specialization and multilevel configuration of feature models, Softw. Process Improv. Pract., 10, 2, 143-169, (2005)
[43] Batory, D., Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas, (9th International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC’05, (2005), Springer), 7-20
[44] Czarnecki, K.; Helsen, S., Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches, IBM Syst. J., 45, 3, 621-646, (2006)
[45] Heymans, P.; Schobbens, P.; Trigaux, J.; Bontemps, Y.; Matulevicius, R.; Classen, A., Evaluating formal properties of feature diagram languages, IET Softw., 2, 3, 281-302, (2008)
[46] Mendonça, M.; Wasowski, A.; Czarnecki, K., SAT-based analysis of feature models is easy, (13rd International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC’09, (2009)), 231-240
[47] Benavides, D.; Segura, S.; Ruiz, A., Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: a literature review, Inf. Syst., 35, 6, 615-636, (2010)
[48] Schobbens, P. Y.; Heymans, P.; Trigaux, J.-C.; Bontemps, Y., Generic semantics of feature diagrams, Comput. Netw., 51, 2, 456-479, (2007) · Zbl 1119.68113
[49] Hold-Geoffroy, Y.; Gagnon, O.; Parizeau, M., Once you scoop, no need to fork, (Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment, (2014), ACM), 60
[50] Gregorio-Rodríguez, C.; Llana, L.; Martínez-Torres, R., Extending MCRL2 with ready simulation and iocos input-output conformance simulation, (Proceedings 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC’15, (2015), ACM Press), 1781-1788
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.