Using rationale to drive product line architecture configuration

ABSTRACT

The process of designing and building a software system requires making many decisions. These decisions, the alternatives considered, and the reasons behind the choices comprise the rationale for the completed system. The driving force behind many, if not most, of these decisions is the need to meet the stakeholder requirements for the system being developed. Software product line approaches allow developers to design and develop families of products that share a common platform of behaviors and infrastructure. These approaches are based on assembling a configuration of a set of common features (commonalities) along with a set of product specific features (variabilities) to form a new product with a low amount of effort. In this context, these variabilities represent a wide variety of potential "design" alternatives. The goal of our research is to bring the end-user into the process of configuring a software product through the use of system level rationale that maps product line features to system requirements. Specifically, in our approach we specify rationale at the level of a feature diagram. Accordingly, we are taking advantage of the natural correlation between alternative features in a feature diagram and the alternative structure used in design rationale. This allows the end-user to indicate which requirements apply to their product and to have that selection generate a set of product features that satisfy those requirements.

References

1. Aldazabal, A., and Erofeev, S. Product line unified modeller. In Eclipse Summit Europe (2007).
2. Antkiewicz, M., and Czarnecki, K. Featureplugin: feature modeling plug-in for eclipse. In eclipse '04: Proceedings of the 2004 OOPSLA workshop on eclipse technology eXchange (New York, NY, USA, 2004), ACM, pp. 67--72.
3. Burge, J. E., and Brown, D. C. An integrated approach for software design checking using design rationale. In in 1st International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition (2004), Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 557--576.
4. Burge, J. E., and Brown, D. C. Software engineering using rationale. J. Syst. Softw. 81, 3 (2008), 395--413.
5. Burge, J. E., Carroll, J. M., McCall, R., and Mistrk, I. Rationale-Based Software Engineering. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2008.
6. Cechticky, V., Pasetti, A., Rohlik, O., and Schaufelberger, W. Xml-based feature modelling. In Software Reuse: Methods, Techniques and Tools: 8th International Conference (2004), Springer-Verlag, pp. 101--114.
7. Conklin, E. J., and Yakemovic, K. C. B. A process-oriented approach to design rationale. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, 3 (1991), 357--391.
8. Dutoit, A. H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., and Paech, B. Rationale Management in Software Engineering. Springer Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2006.
9. Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., McCall, R., and Morch, A. I. Making argumentation serve design. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, 3 (1991), 393--419.
10. Gomaa, H. Designing software product lines with uml. In SEW '05: Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop - Tutorial Notes (Washington, DC, USA, 2005), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 160--216.
11. González-Baixauli, B., Laguna, M. A., and Crespo, Y. Product lines, features, and mdd. In 1st European Workshop on Model Transformation (EWMT 05) (Sep 2005). SPLC 05.
12. Hendrickson, S. A., Subramanian, S., and van der Hoek, A. Multi-tiered design rationale for change set based product line architectures. In SHARK '08: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Sharing and reusing architectural knowledge (New York, NY, USA, 2008), ACM, pp. 41--44.
13. Kang, K. C., Cohen, S. G., Hess, J. A., Novak, W. E., and Peterson, A. S. Feature-oriented domain analysis (foda) feasibility study. Tech. rep., Carnegie-Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, November 1990.
14. Karacapilidis, N., and Dimitris, P. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the hermes system. Information Systems 26, 4 (2001), 259--277.
15. Krueger, C. Easing the transition to software mass customization. In Software Product-Family Engineering, F. van der Linden, Ed., vol. 2290 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2002, pp. 178--184.
16. Lee, J. Design rationale systems: Understanding the issues. IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 12, 3 (1997), 78--85.
17. Liaskos, S., Lapouchnian, A., Wang, Y., Yu, Y., and Easterbrook, S. Configuring common personal software: a requirements-driven approach. In Requirements Engineering, 2005. Proceedings. 13th IEEE International Conference on (2005), pp. 9--18.
18. Moran, T. P. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1996.
19. Pure-systems GmbH. Variant management with pure::variants. {Online, accessed 3/5/2011}, 2006.
20. Rohlik, O., Pasetti, A., Ekstein, K., and Chevalley, P. A meta-modelling approach to feature modelling. http://pnp-software.com/XFeature/pdf/XFeatureToolConcept.pdf.
21. Rohlik, O., Pasetti, A., Ekstein, K., and Chevalley, P. Xfeature feature modelling tool. http://pnp-software.com/XFeature/.
22. Thurimella, A. K., and Bruegge, B. Evolution in product line requirements engineering: A rationale management approach. Requirements Engineering, IEEE International Conference on 0 (2007), 254--257.

Index Terms

• Software and its engineering

  • Software creation and management

    • Designing software