survey

CASE Tool Support for Variability Management in Software Product Lines

Authors:

Rabih Bashroush,

Muhammad Garba,

Goetz BotterweckAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Volume 50, Issue 1

Article No.: 14, Pages 1 - 45

https://doi.org/10.1145/3034827

Published: 10 March 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Software product lines (SPL) aim at reducing time-to-market and increasing software quality through extensive, planned reuse of artifacts. An essential activity in SPL is variability management, i.e., defining and managing commonality and variability among member products. Due to the large scale and complexity of today's software-intensive systems, variability management has become increasingly complex to conduct. Accordingly, tool support for variability management has been gathering increasing momentum over the last few years and can be considered a key success factor for developing and maintaining SPLs. While several studies have already been conducted on variability management, none of these analyzed the available tool support in detail. In this work, we report on a survey in which we analyzed 37 existing variability management tools identified using a systematic literature review to understand the tools’ characteristics, maturity, and the challenges in the field. We conclude that while most studies on variability management tools provide a good motivation and description of the research context and challenges, they often lack empirical data to support their claims and findings. It was also found that quality attributes important for the practical use of tools such as usability, integration, scalability, and performance were out of scope for most studies.

References

[1]

M. Acher, P. Collet, P. Lahire, and R. B. France. 2011. Managing feature models with FAMILIAR: A demonstration of the language and its tool support. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS’11). ACM, 91--96.

Digital Library

[2]

M. Acher, M. Alférez, J. A. Galindo, P. Romenteau, and B. Baudry. 2014. ViViD: A variability-based tool for synthesizing video sequences. In Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference: Companion Volume for Workshops, Demonstrations and Tools. ACM, 143--147.

Digital Library

[3]

V. Alves, N. Niu, C. F. Alves, and G. Valença. 2010. Requirements for engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 8 (2010). 806--820.

Digital Library

[4]

M. Antkiewicz and K. Czarnecki. 2004. FeaturePlugin: Feature modeling plug-in for eclipse. In Proceedings of the OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange (ETX’04). ACM, 67--72.

Digital Library

[5]

S. Arion and J.-P. Tolvanen. 2004. MetaEdit+: Domain-specific modeling and code generation environment. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Software Variability Management for Product Derivation - Towards Tool Support. Springer, Berlin, 1--3.

[6]

N. H. Bakar, Z. M. Kasirun, and N. Salleh. 2015. Feature extraction approaches from natural language requirements for reuse in software product lines: A systematic literature review. J. Syst. Software 106 (2015), 132--149.

Digital Library

[7]

R. Bashroush. 2010. A NUI based multiple perspective variability modeling CASE Tool. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Software Architecture (ECSA’10). Springer, Berlin, 523--526.

[8]

D. Batory, J. N. Sarvela, and A. Rauschmayer. 2004. Scaling step-wise refinement. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30 (2004), 355--371.

Digital Library

[9]

G. Bécan, S. B. Nasr, M. Acher, and B. Baudry. 2014. WebFML: synthesizing feature models everywhere. In Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference: Companion Volume for Workshops, Demonstrations and Tools. ACM. 112--116.

Digital Library

[10]

M. H. ter Beek, F. Mazzanti, and A. Sulova. 2012. VMC: A tool for product variability analysis. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Formal Methods (FM’12). Springer, Berlin, 450--454.

[11]

T. Berger, S. She, R. Lotufo, A. Wąsowski, and K. Czarnecki. 2010. Variability modeling in the real: a perspective from the operating systems domain. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. ACM, 73--82.

Digital Library

[12]

T. Berger, R. Rublack, D. Nair, J. M. Atlee, M. Becker, K. Czarnecki, and A. Wąsowski. 2013. A survey of variability modeling in industrial practice. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Variability Modelling for Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS’13). ACM, New York, 7--14.

Digital Library

[13]

G. Botterweck and A. Pleuss. 2014. Evolution of software product lines. In Evolving Software Systems, T. Mens, A. Serebrenik, and A. Cleve, (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 265--295.

[14]

R. M. M. Braga, C. M. L. Werner, and M. Mattoso. 1999. Odyssey: a reuse environment based on domain models. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Application-Specific Systems and Software Engineering and Technology (ASSET’99). IEEE. 50--57.

[15]

P. Brereton, B. A. Kitchenham, D. Budgen, M. Turner, and M. Khalil. 2007. Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J. Syst. Softw. 80, 4 (2007), 571--583.

Digital Library

[16]

D. Beuche. 2016. Using pure: variants across the product line lifecycle. In Proceedings of the 20th International Systems and Software Product Line Conference (SPLC’16). ACM. 333--336.

Digital Library

[17]

BigLever. 2016. Gears. Retrieved from http://www.biglever.com/solution/product.html.

[18]

G. Campbell. MTP TOOL- The metaprogramming text processor. Retrieved from http://www.domain-specific.com/index.html.

[19]

R. Capilla, A. Sánchez, and J. C. Dueñas. 2012. An analysis of variability modeling and management tools for product line development. In Proceedings of the Software and Services Variability Management Workshop Concepts, Model and Tools. 32--47.

[20]

D. Castelluccia and N. Boffoli. 2014. Service-oriented product lines: a systematic mapping study. ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng. Notes 39, 2 (2014), 1--6.

Digital Library

[21]

V. Cechticky, A. Pasetti, O. Rohlik, and W. Schaufelberger. 2004. XML-Based Feature Modelling. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR’04). Springer, Berlin. 101--114.

[22]

L. Chen and M. A. Babar. 2011. A systematic review of evaluation of variability management approaches in software product lines. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53, 4 (2011), 344--362.

Digital Library

[23]

P. Clements and L. Northrop. 2007. Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns (6th. ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston, MA.

[24]

K. Czarnecki, P. Grünbacher, R. Rabiser, K. Schmid, and A. Wąsowski. 2012. Cool features and tough decisions: A comparison of variability modeling approaches. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS’12). ACM, New York, 173--182.

Digital Library

[25]

D. Dhungana, P. Grünbacher, and R. Rabiser. 2011. The DOPLER meta-tool for decision-oriented variability modeling: a multiple case study. Autom. Software Eng. 18, 1 (2011). 77--114.

Digital Library

[26]

B. Dit, M. Revelle, M. Gethers, and D. Poshyvanyk. 2013. Feature location in source code: a taxonomy and survey. J. Software Evolutio. Process 25, 1 (2013). 53--95.

[27]

O. Djebbi, C. Salinesi, and G. Fanmuy. 2007. Industry survey of product lines management tools: Requirements, qualities and open issues. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference. IEEE. 301--306.

[28]

DOORS-TREK. 2013. Retrieved from http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss&quest;uid=swg24032035.

[29]

Eclipse. 2016. Graphical Modeling Framework (GMF, Eclipse Modeling subproject). Retrieved from https://www.eclipse.org/modeling/gmp/.

[30]

H. Eichelberger, S. El-Sharkawy, C. Kröher, and K. Schmid. 2014. EASy-producer: product line development for variant-rich ecosystems. In Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference: Companion Volume for Workshops, Demonstrations and Tools. ACM. 133--137.

Digital Library

[31]

E. Engström and P. Runeson. 2011. Software product line testing - A systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53, 1 (2011), 2--13.

Digital Library

[32]

M. Eysholdt and H. Behrens. 2010. Xtext: implement your language faster than the quick and dirty way. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications Companion (OOPSLA’10). ACM. 307--309.

Digital Library

[33]

A. Felfernig, G. Friedrich, D. Jannach, and M. Zanker. 2001. Intelligent support for interactive configuration of mass-customized products. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems (IEA/AIE’01). Springer, Berlin. 746--756.

[34]

R. Fernández, M. A. Laguna, J. Requejo, and N. Serrano. 2009. Development of a feature modeling tool using microsoft DSL tools. Technical Report. University of Valladolid. GIRO Technical Report 05/01/ 2009.

[35]

W. Frakes, R. Prieto-Diaz, and C. Fox. 1997. DARE-COTS: A domain analysis support tool. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC’97). IEEE. 73--77.

[36]

C. Gauthier, A. Classen, M.-A. Storey, and M. Mendonca. 2010. XToF: A tool for tag-based product line implementation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software Intensive Systems (VaMoS 2010), ICB-Research Report 37, Universität Duisburg-Essen. 163--166.

[37]

H. Gomaa and M. E. Shin. 2004. Tool support for software variability management and product derivation in software product lines. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Software Variability Management for Product Derivation—Towards Tool Support. Springer, Berlin. 331--331.

[38]

M. Gómez, I. Mansanet, J. Fons, and V. Pelechano. 2012. Moskitt4SPL: Tool support for developing self-adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Software Engineering and Databases (JISBD’12).

[39]

G. Guedes, C. Silva, M. Soares, and J. B. de Castro. 2015. Variability management in dynamic software product lines: A systematic mapping. In Proceedings of the 2015 IX Brazilian Symposium on Components, Architectures and Reuse Software (SBCARS’15). IEEE. 90--99.

Digital Library

[40]

J. van Gurp, J. Bosch, and M. Svahnberg. 2001. On the notion of variability in software product lines. In Proceedings of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA’01). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 45--54.

Digital Library

[41]

J. Heer, S. K. Card, and J. A. Landay. 2005. Prefuse: A toolkit for interactive information visualization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05). ACM. 421--430.

Digital Library

[42]

F. Heidenreich. 2009. Towards systematic ensuring well-formedness of software product lines. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development (FOSD’09). ACM. 69--74.

Digital Library

[43]

F. Heidenreich, J. Johannes, S. Karol, M. Seifert, and C. Wende. 2009. Derivation and refinement of textual syntax for models. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications (ECMDA-FA 2009). Springer, Berlin. 114--129.

Digital Library

[44]

A. Hervieu, B. Baudry, and A. Gotlieb. 2011. PACOGEN: Automatic generation of pairwise test configurations from feature models. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE’11). IEEE. 120--129.

Digital Library

[45]

G. Holl, P. Grünbacher, and R. Rabiser. 2012. A systematic review and an expert survey on capabilities supporting multi product lines. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 8 (2012), 828--852.

Digital Library

[46]

Hydra Feature Modeling. 2009. Retrieved from http://caosd.lcc.uma.es/spl/hydra/index.htm.

[47]

IBM Rational DOORS. Retrieved from www.ibm.com.

[48]

A. Jedlitschka and D. Pfahl. 2005. Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE’05). IEEE. 95--104.

[49]

M. F. Johansen, Ø. Haugen, and F. Fleurey. 2012. An algorithm for generating t-wise covering arrays from large feature models. In Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC’12). ACM. 46--55.

Digital Library

[50]

K. C. Kang, S. G. Cohen, J. A. Hess, W. E. Novak, and A. S. Peterson. 1990. Feature oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University CMU/SEI-90-TR-211990.

[51]

M. Khurum and T. Gorschek. 2009. A systematic review of domain analysis solutions for product lines. J. Syst. Software 82, 12 (2009), 1982--2003.

Digital Library

[52]

K. Kim, H. Kim, M. Ahn, M. Seo, Y. Chang, and K. C. Kang. 2006. ASADAL: A tool system for co-development of software and test environment based on product line engineering. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’06). ACM. 783--786.

Digital Library

[53]

B. Kitchenham, S. Charters, D. Budgen, P. Brereton, M. Turner, S. Linkman, M. Jorgensen, E. Mendes, and G. Visaggio. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report. Keele University, UK EBSE-2007--12007.

[54]

B. Kitchenham, O. P. Brereton, D. Budgen, M. Turner, J. Bailey, and S. Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51, 1 (2009), 7--15.

Digital Library

[55]

D. S. Kolovos, L. M. Rose, N. D. Matragkas, R. F. Paige, E. Guerra, J. u. Cuadrado, J. De Lara, I. Rath, D. Varro, M. Tisi, and J. Cabot. 2013. A research roadmap towards achieving scalability in model driven engineering. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Scalability in Model Driven Engineering. ACM. 2.

Digital Library

[56]

C. W. Krueger. 2007. The 3-tiered methodology: Pragmatic insights from new generation software product lines. In Proceeding of the 11th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC’07). IEEE. 97--106.

[57]

C. Krueger and P. Clements. 2014. Systems and software product line engineering with gears from BigLever software. In Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference: Companion Volume for Workshops, Demonstrations and Tools. ACM. 121--125.

Digital Library

[58]

M. A. Laguna and Y. Crespo. 2013. A systematic mapping study on software product line evolution: From legacy system reengineering to product line refactoring. Sci. Comput. Program. 78, 8 (2013), 1010--1034.

Digital Library

[59]

D. Lettner, M. Petruzelka, R. Rabiser, F. Angerer, H. Prähofer, and P. Grünbacher. 2013. Custom-developed vs. model-based configuration tools: Experiences from an industrial automation ecosystem. In Proceedings of MAPLE/SCALE 2013, Workshop at the 17th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC’13). ACM. 52--58.

[60]

L. B. Lisboa, V. C. Garcia, D. Lucrédio, E. S. de Almeida, S. R. de Lemos Meira, and R. P. de Mattos Fortes. 2010. A systematic review of domain analysis tools. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 1 (2010), 1--13.

Digital Library

[61]

L. B. Lisboa, V. C. Garcia, E. S. de Almeida, and S. R. de Lemos Meira. 2011. ToolDAy: a tool for domain analysis. Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer 13, 4 (2011), 337--353.

Digital Library

[62]

R. E. Lopez-Herrejon, S. Fischer, R. Ramler, and A. Egyed. 2015a. A first systematic mapping study on combinatorial interaction testing for software product lines. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST’15) Workshops. IEEE. 1--10.

[63]

R. E. Lopez-Herrejon, L. Linsbauer, and A. Egyed. 2015b. A systematic mapping study of search-based software engineering for software product lines. Inf. Softw. Technol. 61 (2015), 33--51.

Digital Library

[64]

P. Y. Martin and B. A. Turner. 1986. Grounded theory and organizational research. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 22, 2 (1986), 141--157.

[65]

I. do Carmo Machado, J. D. McGregor, Y. C. Cavalcanti, and E. S. de Almeida. 2014. On strategies for testing software product lines: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56, 10 (2014), 1183--1199.

Digital Library

[66]

J. Martinez, C. Lopez, E. Ulacia, and M. del Hierro. 2009. Towards a model-driven product line for web systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Model-Driven Web Engineering Workshop (MDWE’09).

[67]

T. von der Maßen and H. Lichter. 2004. RequiLine: A requirements engineering tool for software product lines. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Product Family Engineering (PFE’04). Springer, Berlin. 168--180.

[68]

G. E. Matt and T. D. Cook. 1994. Threats to the validity of research syntheses. In Handbook of Research Synthesis. H. Cooper, 8 L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

[69]

M. Mendonca, M. Branco, and D. Cowan. 2009. S.P.L.O.T.: Software Product Lines Online Tools. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN Conference Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOPSLA’09). ACM. 761--762.

Digital Library

[70]

B. Mohabbati, M. Asadi, D. Gasevic, M. Hatala, and H. A. Müller. 2013. Combining service-orientation and software product line engineering: A systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55, 11 (2013), 1845--1859.

Digital Library

[71]

S. Montagud, S. Abrahão, and E. Insfran. 2012. A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines. Software Qual. J. 20, 3 (2012). 425--486.

Digital Library

[72]

G. C. Murphy, D. Notkin, and K. J. Sullivan. 2001. Software reflexion models: Bridging the gap between design and implementation. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 27, 4 (2001). 364--380.

Digital Library

[73]

V. Myllärniemi, T. Asikainen, T. Männistö, and T. Soininen. 2005. Kumbang configurator—A configuration tool for software product families. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-05 Workshop on Configuration.

[74]

V. Myllärniemi, M. Raatikainen, and T. Männistö. 2012. A systematically conducted literature review: Quality attribute variability in software product lines. In Proceedings of the 16th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC’12). ACM. 41--45.

Digital Library

[75]

P. A. da Mota Silveira Neto, I. do Carmo Machado, J. D. McGregor, E. S. de Almeida, and S. R. de Lemos Meira. 2011. A systematic mapping study of software product lines testing. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53, 5 (2011). 407--423

Digital Library

[76]

R. van Ommering, F. van der Linden, J. Kramer, and J. Magee. 2000. The Koala component model for consumer electronics software. IEEE Comput. 33, 3 (2000), 78--85.

Digital Library

[77]

K. Park, D. Ryu, and J. Baik. 2012. An integrated software management tool for adopting software product lines. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS’12). IEEE. 553--558.

Digital Library

[78]

A. Pleuss and G. Botterweck. 2012. Visualization of variability and configuration options. Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer 14, 5 (2012), 497--510.

Digital Library

[79]

K. Pohl, G. Böckle, and F. v. d. Linden. 2005a. Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

[80]

K. Pohl, G. Böckle, and F. van der Linden. 2005b. VARMOD Tool. Retrieved from http://www.sse.uni-essen.de/swpl/SEGOS-VM-Tool/index.html.

[81]

Pure-Systems. 2016. pure::variants variant management tool. Retrieved from http://www.pure-systems.com/pure_variants.49.0.html.

[82]

T. Quatrani. 2002. Visual Modeling with Rational Rose 2002 and UML. Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston, MA.

[83]

R. dos Santos Rocha and M. Fantinato. 2013. The use of software product lines for business process management: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55, 8, 2013. 1355--1373.

[84]

J. Rubin and M. Rinard. 2016. The challenges of staying together while moving fast: an exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’16). ACM. 982--993.

Digital Library

[85]

P. Runeson and M. Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Eng. 14 (2009), 131--164.

Digital Library

[86]

G. Russell, F. Burns, and A. Yakovlev. 2012. VARMA—VARiability modelling and analysis tool. In Proceedings of the IEEE 15th International Symposium on Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits 8 Systems (DDECS’12). IEEE. 378--383.

[87]

H. Samih and R. Bogusch. 2014. MPLM - MaTeLo product line manager: [relating variability modelling and model-based testing]. In Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference: Companion Volume for Workshops, Demonstrations and Tools. ACM 127--142.

[88]

I. de Sousa Santos, R. M. C. Andrade, and P. de Alcântara dos Santos Neto. 2015. Templates for textual use cases of software product lines: results from a systematic mapping study and a controlled experiment. J. Software Eng. R8D 3 (2015), 5.

[89]

SAP Configurator. 2016. Retrieved from www.sap.com.

[90]

K. Schmid and M. Schank. 2000. PuLSE-BEAT — A decision support tool for scoping product Lines. In Proceedings of the International Workshop Software Architectures for Product Families (IW-SAPF-3). Springer, Berlin, 65--75.

[91]

C. B. Seaman. 1999. Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 25, 4 (1999). 557--572.

Digital Library

[92]

S. Segura, J. A. Galindo, D. Benavides, J. A. Parejo, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. 2012. BeTTy: Benchmarking and Testing on the Automated Analysis of Feature Models. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS’12). ACM. 63--71.

Digital Library

[93]

D. Sellier, M. Mannion, and J. X. Mansell. 2008. Managing requirements inter-dependency for software product line derivation. Requirements Engineering 13, 4 (2008), 299--313.

Digital Library

[94]

P. Shakari and B. Møller-Pedersen. 2006. On the implementation of a tool for feature modeling with a base model twist. In Proceedings of the Norwegian Informatics Conference (NIK’06). 81--93.

[95]

S. Sepúlveda, A. Cravero, and C. Cachero. 2016. Requirements modeling languages for software product lines: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 69 (2016), 16--36.

Digital Library

[96]

S. She. 2016. Linux Variability Analysis Tools (LVAT). Retrieved from https://code.google.com/archive/p/linux-variability-analysis-tools/.

[97]

I. F. da Silva, P. A. da Mota Silveira Neto, P. O’Leary, E. S. de Almeida, and S. R. de Lemos Meira. 2011. Agile software product lines: A systematic mapping study. Softw. Pract. Exper. 41, 8 (2011), 899--920.

Digital Library

[98]

J. Sincero and W. Schröder-Preikschat. 2008. The Linux kernel configurator as a feature modeling tool. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Software Product Lines (SPLC’08). IEEE. 257--260.

[99]

M. Sinnema, S. Deelstra, J. Nijhuis, and J. Bosch. 2004. COVAMOF: A framework for modeling variability in software product families. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Product Lines (SPLC’04). Springer, Berlin. 197--213.

[100]

M. Sinnema and S. Deelstra. 2007. Classifying variability modeling techniques. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49, 7 (2007), 717--739.

Digital Library

[101]

L. R. Soares, P. Potena, I. do Carmo Machado, I. Crnkovic, and E. S. de Almeida. 2014. Analysis of non-functional properties in software product lines: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 40th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. IEEE. 328--335.

Digital Library

[102]

SparxSystems Enterprise Architect. 2016. Retrieved from www.sparxsystems.com.

[103]

M. Stengel, M. Frisch, S. Apel, J. Feigenspan, C. Kästner, and R. Dachselt. 2011. View infinity: a zoomable interface for feature-oriented software development. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’11). IEEE. 1031--1033.

Digital Library

[104]

G. Succi, W. Pedrycz, J. Yip, and I. Kaytazov. 2001. Intelligent design of product lines in Holmes. In Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. IEEE. 75--80.

[105]

T. Thüm, C. Kästner, F. Benduhn, J. Meinicke, G. Saake, and T. Leich. 2012. FeatureIDE: An extensible framework for feature-oriented software development. Sci. Comput. Program. 79(2014), 70--85.

Digital Library

[106]

P. Trinidad, D. Benavides, A. Ruiz-Cortes, and S. Segura. 2008. FAMA Framework. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC’08). IEEE. 359--359.

Digital Library

[107]

G. Vale, E. Figueiredo, R. Abílio, and H. A. X. Costa. 2014. Bad smells in software product lines: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 8th Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures and Reuse (SBCARS’14). IEEE. 84--94.

Digital Library

[108]

J. White, D. C. Schmidt, E. Wuchner, and A. Nechypurenko. 2007. Automating product-line variant selection for mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 11th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC’07). IEEE. 129--140.

[109]

C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M. C. Ohlsson, and B. Regnell. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin.

[110]

A. E. E. Yamany, M. Shaheen, and A. S. Sayyad. 2014. OPTI-SELECT: An interactive tool for user-in-the-loop feature selection in software product lines. In Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference: Companion Volume for Workshops, Demonstrations and Tools. ACM. 126--129.

Digital Library

[111]

H. Zhang and S. Jarzabek. 2004. XVCL: a mechanism for handling variants in software product lines. Science of Computer Programming 53, 3 (2004), 381--407.

Digital Library

[112]

B. Zhang and M. Becker. 2014. Variability code analysis using the VITAL tool. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development (FOSD’14). ACM. 17--22.

Digital Library

[113]

ZIPC Feature. 2009. Retrieved from http://www.zipc.com/english/product/xmodelink/.

Cited By

Feichtinger KGalasso-Carbonnel J(2024)Seventh International Workshop on Languages for Modelling Variability (MODEVAR@SPLC 2024)Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference10.1145/3646548.3677006(224-224)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3646548.3677006
Azonhoumon V(2024)Design of a Meta-Factory for Product Lines Model-Driven SoftwareProceedings of the 28th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference10.1145/3646548.3676545(6-10)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3646548.3676545
Becker MRabiser RBotterweck G(2024)Not Quite There Yet: Remaining Challenges in Systems and Software Product Line Engineering as Perceived by Industry PractitionersProceedings of the 28th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference10.1145/3646548.3672587(179-190)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3646548.3672587
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

CASE Tool Support for Variability Management in Software Product Lines
1. General and reference
  1. Document types
    1. Surveys and overviews
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software development techniques
      1. Reusability
        Software product lines
    2. Software post-development issues
      1. Software version control
  2. Software notations and tools

Recommendations

Managing Variability in Software Product Lines

Variability management (VM) is a fundamental activity of software product line engineering (SPLE). VM explicitly represents software artifact variations for managing dependencies among SPL variants and support their instantiations throughout the SPL ...
Towards metamodel support for variability and traceability in software product lines
VaMoS '11: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems

In Software Product Lines (SPL), where a greater variety of products are derived from a common platform and constantly changed and evolved, it is important to manage the SPL variability and the traceability among its artifacts. This paper presents a ...
Software Variability Management
ICSE '04: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering

During recent years, the amount of variability that hasto be supported by a software artefact is growingconsiderably and its management is evolving into amajor challenge during development, usage, andevolution of software artefacts. Successful ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Computing Surveys

ACM Computing Surveys Volume 50, Issue 1

January 2018

588 pages

ISSN:0360-0300

EISSN:1557-7341

DOI:10.1145/3058791

Editor:
Sartaj Sahni
Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering / University of Florida / Gainesville, FL 32611

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2017 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: 10 March 2017

Accepted: 01 January 2017

Revised: 01 November 2016

Received: 01 March 2014

Published in CSUR Volume 50, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Survey
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

Christian Doppler Forschungsgesellschaft, Austria and Primetals Technologies
Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

50
Total Citations
View Citations
996
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)67
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

Reflects downloads up to 14 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Feichtinger KGalasso-Carbonnel J(2024)Seventh International Workshop on Languages for Modelling Variability (MODEVAR@SPLC 2024)Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference10.1145/3646548.3677006(224-224)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3646548.3677006
Azonhoumon V(2024)Design of a Meta-Factory for Product Lines Model-Driven SoftwareProceedings of the 28th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference10.1145/3646548.3676545(6-10)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3646548.3676545
Becker MRabiser RBotterweck G(2024)Not Quite There Yet: Remaining Challenges in Systems and Software Product Line Engineering as Perceived by Industry PractitionersProceedings of the 28th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference10.1145/3646548.3672587(179-190)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3646548.3672587
Epp JRobert TRuch OOlechowski A(2024)Transitioning towards SysML v2 as a variability modeling languageInnovations in Systems and Software Engineering10.1007/s11334-024-00569-yOnline publication date: 14-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-024-00569-y
Epp JRobert TRuch OOlechowski A(2023)Towards SysML v2 as a Variability Modeling Language2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C)10.1109/MODELS-C59198.2023.00054(251-256)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/MODELS-C59198.2023.00054
Fischer SKlammer CFernández ARabiser RRamler R(2023)Testing of highly configurable cyber–physical systems — Results from a two-phase multiple case studyJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2023.111624199:COnline publication date: 1-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111624
Horcas JPinto MFuentes L(2023)A modular metamodel and refactoring rules to achieve software product line interoperabilityJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2022.111579197:COnline publication date: 1-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2022.111579
Bjarnason EÅberg PAli N(2023)Software selection in large-scale software engineering: A model and criteria based on interactive rapid reviewsEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-023-10288-w28:2Online publication date: 28-Feb-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-023-10288-w
Englebert VBelarbi M(2023)A Methodological Framework for SPL Engineering from DSMLModel-Driven Engineering and Software Development10.1007/978-3-031-38821-7_9(179-202)Online publication date: 4-Aug-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38821-7_9
Silva LOliveiraJr ESantos R(2022)A Field Study on Reference Architectural Decisions for Developing a UML-based Software Product Line ToolProceedings of the 16th Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures, and Reuse10.1145/3559712.3559713(20-29)Online publication date: 3-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3559712.3559713
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents