PLE-RUP: A Way to Product Line Engineering - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 22
About This Presentation
Title:

PLE-RUP: A Way to Product Line Engineering

Description:

PLE-RUP: A Way to PLE. 1. Presented at 4th International Workshop on Frontiers of ... Fran ois Coallier, Roger Champagne, A Product Line engineering practices model, ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:78
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: nqa
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: PLE-RUP: A Way to Product Line Engineering


1
PLE-RUP A Way to Product Line Engineering
  • By
  • Nafees Qamar, Romana Aziz
  • Faculty of Computer Sciences,
  • COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
    Islamabad, Pakistan.

2
Presentation Profile
  • Things I will cover
  • A brief Introduction to Product Line Engineering
    (PLE) its underlying Terminologies
  • Problem Statement
  • Proposed Methodology w.r.t
  • Aspect-Oriented Software Development
  • Model Driven Architecture
  • Specialized activities related to PLE
  • Conclusion Future Outlook
  • Things I wont cover in detail
  • In depth discussion on specific technologies like
    AOSD, MDA
  • Case Study

3
Research Question/ Motivation
  • How can product families be engineered to achieve
    the goals of a software product line?
  • To identify essential activities in software
    product lines and to bring improvements in its
    practice (State-of-the-art)
  • To propose new way to organizations which
    employing PLE concepts and to provide guidance to
    an organization

4
Introduction (1)
  • Often we confuse between two the terms
  • Product Lines Group of products sharing a
    common, managed set of features that satisfy
    needs of selected market or mission
  • Product Family Set of related systems that are
    built from a common set of core assets
  • Example?
  • Domain?
  • A specialized body of knowledge an area of
    expertise.

5
What is PLE? (2)
  • To be very precise
  • Systematic reuse strategy that defines a software
    or hardware production process that takes
    advantage of previous developments and focuses on
    enhancing the product line rather than creating a
    new product
  • Domain Engineering?
  • Systematic approach to construct reusable assets
  • Application Engineering?
  • Use the assets to build specialized software
    systems

6
Look at Complications!
MDA, AOSD, Light-weight Formal Methods, RUP
Adoption, UML Profiles
7
PLE-RUP Focused Challenges
  • Along with Research Questions
  • Developing Product Line/Product Family
  • Evolving product line architectures and core
    assets
  • Collecting, organizing and storing past
    experience in building (parts of) systems
  • as well as providing means for reusing these
    assets (retrieve, adapt, assemble, etc...)
  • Building New Systems Pure Application Engg.
  • How we can realize improved reusability?

8
Existing Methodologies
  • COPA
  • FAST
  • FORM
  • QADA
  • PuLSE
  • PuLSE-I

9
The Proposed Process at a glance
This is realized by various abstraction levels
10
Aspectual Decomposition
  • Our way of catering requirements and their
    implementation
  • Because of the Better Modularity, Increased
    Traceability

11
PLE-RUP Phases (1)
  • Inception Product / Product Family (project
    viability)
  • Elaboration Product / PLE Architecture
  • Construction Product / Product Family
    Construction
  • Transition End Product
  • Product Line Engineering Workflow Output
  • Enhanced Reusability

12
Proposed Workflow
  • Requirements Specifications/ stakeholders
    identification
  • Aspect-Oriented Software Development
  • Product Family
  • Product planning (scoping),
  • Product modeling (feature modeling)
  • and Product validation
  • Analysis Design / Abstractions
  • Model Driven Architecture
  • Implementation
  • Test
  • Deploy

13
MDA-Model Driven Architecture
  • The Motivation is apparent
  • Changes in the underlying platform do not affect
    existing applications, and
  • Business logic can evolve independently from the
    underlying technology
  • Computation Independent Model (CIM)
  • Platform Independent Model (PIM)
  • Platform Specific Model (PSM)
  • described by a Platform Model (PM),
  • and an Implementation Specific Model (ISM)

14
MDD Model Driven Development
  • Define and maintain business domain model
  • Platform Independent Model
  • Just enough modeling
  • Built-in UML Modeling or
  • Supports external Modeling tools (e.g. Rational
    Rose)
  • Automated transformations to application model(s)
  • Platform Specific Models
  • J2EE Architecture
  • Automated code generation
  • 100 Industry standard code
  • Robust, secure, scalable, maintainable
  • Working code (not stubs or skeletons)
  • Agile, Iterative
  • Automated application packaging and deployment
  • Supports all standard deployment environments
  • No lock-in

15
Summary of MDA benefits for Domain Specifications
  • Isolates domain specifications from platform
    details
  • Reduces complexity
  • Preserves domain model semantics
  • Increases stability and lifetime
  • Generates to platform/legacy of choice
  • Decreased development time
  • fast iterative development
  • separation between the engineering and business
    requirements
  • Increased quality.
  • Builds on industry directions
  • Many partial implementations exist
  • Tool/platform support proliferating

16
ASPECT-ORIENTED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
17
Case Study!
  • The implementation/ execution of this SDLC has
    been discussed in detail within the paper
  • Processes are instruments to develop software
    systems

18
Summary
  • Conclusion so far SPLs should be engineered by
  • explicitly setting product production goals
  • considering product production early (before core
    asset design) by AOSD
  • focusing on domain knowledge - MDAs
  • merging these concerns
  • Conjecture SPLs might be better designed and
    implemented by
  • Product planning (scoping),
  • Product modeling (feature modeling)
  • and Product validation

19
Future Outlook
  • Requirement Engineering
  • Through light-weight formal methods
  • Almost accomplished
  • Design
  • Executable Models/ UML Profiles
  • Testing of Product Line Engineering
  • How they differ from conventional ones?
  • Wrapping up to a organized SDLC

20
References
  • Introduction to Software Product Lines, Chapter
    Author Charles W. Krueger, PhD, CEO, BigLever
    Software.
  • Martin Verlage, Thomas Kiesgen, Five Years of
    Product Line Engineering in a Small Company,
    Proceedings of the 27th international conference
    on Software engineering, Pages 534 543, 2005 .
  • Linda M. Northrop, SEIs Software Product Line
    Tenets, IEEE SOFTWARE July / August 2002.
  • Joachim Bayer, Towards Engineering Product Lines
    Using Concerns, ICSE2000.
  • Michalis Anastasopoulos, Joachim Bayer, Oliver
    Rege, and Cristina Gacek, A Process for Product
    Line Architecture, Creation and Evaluation, PuLSE
    DSSA Version 2.0, IESE-Report No.038.00/E, A
    publication by Fraunhofer IESE.
  • Colin Atkinson, Joachim Bayer, Dirk Muthig,
    Component-Based Product Line Development The
    KobrA Approach, Proceedings of the first
    conference on Software product lines experience
    and research directions experience and research
    directions, Pages 289 309, 2000. ISBN
    0-79237-940-3.
  • Mari Matinlassi, Comparison of Software Product
    Line Architecture Design Methods COPA, FAST,
    FORM, KobrA and QADA, Proceedings of the 26th
    International Conference on Software Engineering
    (ICSE04), IEEE.
  • Erwan Breton Jean Btzivin, Model-Driven Process
    Engineering, 2001 IEEE.
  • J. Bayer, O. Flege, P. Knauber, R. Laqua, D.
    Muthig, K. Schmid, T. Widen, and J.-M. DeBaud,
    "Pulse a methodology to develop software product
    lines," in SSR '99 Proceedings of the 1999.
  • John Bergey, Grady Campbell et al., DoD Product
    Line Practice Workshop Report, TECHNICAL REPORT,
    CMU/SEI-99-TR-015, ESC-TR-99-015
  • Joachim Bayer, Cristina Gacek, Dirk Muthig, Tanya
    Widen, "PuLSE-I Deriving Instances from a
    Product Line Infrastructure," ecbs, p. 237, 7th
    IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the
    Engineering of Computer Based Systems, 2000.
  • Reis, R.Q. et al. Towards an Aspect-Oriented
    Approach to Improve the Reusability of Software
    Process Models, Proc. of the Intl Workshop on
    Early Aspects. Enschede, The Netherlands. Apr.
    2002.
  • Shin Young Park, Soo Dong Kim, A Systematic
    Method for Scoping Core Assets in Product Line
    Engineering, Software Engineering Conference,
    2005. APSEC '05. 12th Asia-Pacific.
  • Mikyeong Moon, Keunhyuk Yeom, An Approach To
    Developing Core Assets in Product Line, Software
    Engineering Conference, 2004. 11th Asia-Pacific,
    Dec. 2004.
  • On page(s) 586- 588, IEEE Xplore.
  • Mikyeong Moon, Heung Seok Chae, An Approach to
    Developing Domain Requirements as a Core Asset
    Based on Commonality and Variability Analysis in
    a Product Line, IEEE Transactions on Software
    Engineering, Volume 31 ,  Issue 7  (July 2005),
    Pages 551 569.
  • Stuart R. Faulk, Product-Line Requirements
    Specification (PRS) an Approach and Case Study,
    2001 IEEE.
  • François Coallier, Roger Champagne, A Product
    Line engineering practices model, Special issue
    on system and software architectures(IWSSA'04),
    Pages 73 87, 2005.
  • Walker, R.J., Baniassad, E.L.A., and Murphy G.C.,
    An Initial Assessment of Aspect-oriented
    Programming, ICSE 99 Los Angelos CA USA, in the
    proceedings of ACM, IEEE, 1999.

21
Questions
?
?
?
?
?
22
  • Thanks for Patient Listening!
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com